Sex and Kids - Page 4

Revan · 03-16-2004, 06:32 AM

you know, i was following this thread closely and kept thining why is Luna-tic not replying.

Nice, really nice Luna. I was trying to come up with hypothetical examples but nothing works as good as personal experience. Especially from someone wolfie knows.

This is definitely a check, but will it be a mate?

**Pokerface** · 03-16-2004, 10:43 AM

Wolfie does have his point, though. I'll grant that it's painted with incredibly broad strokes, but if you boil it down to limit it a bit, it's a point worth arguing, in principle if not in specifics.

Welfare exists because we as a society have decided that helping others when they are less than capable of helping themselves is important, because we feel a responsibility towards our fellow man. I don't think it's wholly unreasonable to expect that fellow man to accept the help in a manner that limits the hardship on society as opposed to raises it.

Now, sterilization is more than likely not the answer to those who would have children despite adverse times, but because there is no clear solution doesn't mean that the problem should be ignored, for while there are cases such as Luna where the outcome is commendable, there are also cases (from people we probably won't hear from) where Wolfie's theory pans out.

The governments see fit to hand out money in other arenas based on certain criteria: scores in the such and such percentile will get your school more funding, research into such and such disease that the government feels is important will get more grant money than the other disease it cares less about. I'm not advocating less funding for having a kid, but I'm trying to illustrate that criteria have been and can be set to sway behavior, and perhaps there's some sort of solution in that realm.

If we as a people are going to help those down on their luck, expecting that they're not going to dig the hole any deeper is a reasonable request, I think.

**leejo** · 03-16-2004, 11:27 AM

I understand not wanting to write that welfare check, but I prefer that to giving government this sort of power. This is a radical and, I think, very dangerous idea.

Furthermore, the notion that government would step in and sterilize citizens for legal behavior while not sterilizing others for the same behavior is unconstitutional. Finally, it would never pass muster. What legislator will back this idea? How many people want government making this sort of decision? It's a non-starter.

Finally, if you are a religious person at all, then you understand God's ability to transform a life. No-one is so low, or so high, that their lives can't rise or fall with astonishing speed.

Best regards,

|S&P| leejo

**luna** · 03-16-2004, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerface

Wolfie does have his point, though. I'll grant that it's painted with incredibly broad strokes, but if you boil it down to limit it a bit, it's a point worth arguing, in principle if not in specifics.

Welfare exists because we as a society have decided that helping others when they are less than capable of helping themselves is important, because we feel a responsibility towards our fellow man. I don't think it's wholly unreasonable to expect that fellow man to accept the help in a manner that limits the hardship on society as opposed to raises it.

Now, sterilization is more than likely not the answer to those who would have children despite adverse times, but because there is no clear solution doesn't mean that the problem should be ignored, for while there are cases such as Luna where the outcome is commendable, there are also cases (from people we probably won't hear from) where Wolfie's theory pans out.

The governments see fit to hand out money in other arenas based on certain criteria: scores in the such and such percentile will get your school more funding, research into such and such disease that the government feels is important will get more grant money than the other disease it cares less about. I'm not advocating less funding for having a kid, but I'm trying to illustrate that criteria have been and can be set to sway behavior, and perhaps there's some sort of solution in that realm.

If we as a people are going to help those down on their luck, expecting that they're not going to dig the hole any deeper is a reasonable request, I think.

I do completely agree. While the current status of the welfare system is in need of reform (what isn't these days? Isn't there ALWAYS room for improvement?) I think there is this impression out there that having an extra kid while on welfare is somehow profitable.

Let me use RI as the example here, since I am familiar with the system here. A family of two (meaning one parent and one dependent- a couple with no children is NOT eligible for welfare) is $449.00. A family of 3 is eligible for $554.00. Just to give you an idea of what this means- the lowest you will find a 2 bedroom apartment around here is roughly $600.00/month, not including utilities of any sort. There is a 5 year lifetime limit of collecting benefits. If you are an able-bodied citizen and are collecting, you are required to work on a Independent Employment Plan, which fast-tracks you back into the work force. If you refuse to partake, your benefits are taken away.

For more info, see here:
http://www.dhs.state.ri.us/dhs/dfipref.htm

So I guess what I'm saying is that the idea of being a welfare family, popping out more children for more cash not only doesn't add up, but at least here wouldn't be possible with the system in place.

Also, considering all of these things, I would like to believe that one would see someone like me and understand that I am the majority of folks who are hit by difficult situations. In RI, 68% of those on welfare are under 18 (in 2001).

That would be a whole hell of alot of surgeries on children, and hormone therapy for a very, VERY long time. Who's gonna pay for that?

**Wolfie** · 03-16-2004, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Revan

well then wolfie, lets put it the other way around. You just lost your job .. ended up on welfare and oooops.. your wife (if you have one) gets pregnant. You still feel comfortable about finding a job so yo decide to carry on with the pregnancy. However things turn out sour, you just cannot find a job since you do not have good qualifications....

This wouldn't happened as I would be responsible enough not to bring in a child to this world until I am back on my feet. I would abstain from sex until things were better financially.

Nice try tripping me up though.

**Wolfie** · 03-16-2004, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

So in our case, your government-mandated sterilization may not have had the desired effect.

That is fine. I can compromise and would accept no additional funding going to this family for their irresponsibility.

**Wolfie** · 03-16-2004, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by =luna=

Let me use RI as the example here, since I am familiar with the system here. A family of two (meaning one parent and one dependent- a couple with no children is NOT eligible for welfare) is $449.00. A family of 3 is eligible for $554.00. Just to give you an idea of what this means- the lowest you will find a 2 bedroom apartment around here is roughly $600.00/month, not including utilities of any sort. There is a 5 year lifetime limit of collecting benefits. If you are an able-bodied citizen and are collecting, you are required to work on a Independent Employment Plan, which fast-tracks you back into the work force. If you refuse to partake, your benefits are taken away.

Which supports my original belief that we shouldn't support irresponsible parents. While you look at it as only being an additional 105 dollars a month (or was it 449 every 2 weeks which would make it an additional 210 dollars a month), I see it as a punishment (as taking money away from me for my hard work) against me for someone else's irresponsibility.

Also, does the 600 / month take into consideration low income housing or is that the going rate of an apartment before a family's income is taken into consideration? Not really important, just want to satisfy my curiousity.

**phyllis** · 03-16-2004, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfie

I would abstain from sex until things were better financially.

Ummm...yea.....sureeeeeeeee

**DudeMan** · 03-16-2004, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerface

Wolfie does have his point, though. I'll grant that it's painted with incredibly broad strokes, but if you boil it down to limit it a bit, it's a point worth arguing, in principle if not in specifics.

Welfare exists because we as a society have decided that helping others when they are less than capable of helping themselves is important, because we feel a responsibility towards our fellow man. I don't think it's wholly unreasonable to expect that fellow man to accept the help in a manner that limits the hardship on society as opposed to raises it.

Now, sterilization is more than likely not the answer to those who would have children despite adverse times, but because there is no clear solution doesn't mean that the problem should be ignored, for while there are cases such as Luna where the outcome is commendable, there are also cases (from people we probably won't hear from) where Wolfie's theory pans out.

The governments see fit to hand out money in other arenas based on certain criteria: scores in the such and such percentile will get your school more funding, research into such and such disease that the government feels is important will get more grant money than the other disease it cares less about. I'm not advocating less funding for having a kid, but I'm trying to illustrate that criteria have been and can be set to sway behavior, and perhaps there's some sort of solution in that realm.

If we as a people are going to help those down on their luck, expecting that they're not going to dig the hole any deeper is a reasonable request, I think.

howevere yet again as luna said there is a cut off point to which you can claim leaving any person on welfare a certain amount of time to righ their situation.

oh and lets point one thing out to everyone, not all pregnancies are intentional and i would bet that someone down on their luck would not intend a pregnancy while their finances are not too brilliant. but expecting anyone to choose between a baby even in the fetus or benefits is disgusting. the checks on the welfare are put in place to stop spongers so leave the people who are generally down to go about their life chances are they are embarressed about there situation anyway.

i agree that if it can be helped wait until your finances are sorted etc etc however this assumption that there are these people that are going round just dumping more taxes on for the fun of it is short sighted. accidents can occur and when they do i will gladly pay for my fellow countryman in his hour of need. its imigration people getting welfare i dont want to have nothing to do with.

and also i would like to point out that n ot everyone is a capable person and not everyone infact most people never get help for learning difficulties personality diorders etc etc. i speak from experience my brother (little) has a speech impediment and the mental age of a six year old. it is very possible that he will never get a job and hold it down. should i therefore complain about my taxes tell him he will never be allowed to have kids and probably make him feel his life is more useless than it already feels. no i will help him to find something. and rely on my country for its generosity to help those who need it. it is also important to realise that even though this condition sounds like he should get disability stuff, he will not he does not have down syndrome and not many people know what it is and are hesitant to lable him.

therefore he will be treated as normal, and this is much more common than you may think. that lonly old bloke on the park bench who kids run away from or the drunks in the street etc etc probably have something similar, and millions of people have the same kind of things happen and go unchecked.

i do not see this as the responsability of the person but the responsability of society to improve medical care and recognition and the responsability of those who can afford it to fork out whatever they can.... i.e the rich give a little more than the poorer working people.

**DudeMan** · 03-16-2004, 04:33 PM

oh by the way ... i think leejo was a bit pissed at someone...

deleted by leejo deleted by leejo deletd by leejo....

**leejo** · 03-16-2004, 04:46 PM

No, I decided I was getting sucked into an absurd arguement and bailed.

Y'all debate this issue 'till you're blue in the face, but it's a ridiculous proposition that would never pass a popular vote and is unconstitutional besides, so.....

**DudeMan** · 03-16-2004, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

No, I decided I was getting sucked into an absurd arguement and bailed.

Y'all debate this issue 'till you're blue in the face, but it's a ridiculous proposition that would never pass a popular vote and is unconstitutional besides, so.....

i agree with that. point is it could have been credible if the issue was addressed as a society and not as the individuals fault and the solution as i have said before was right from sadams handbook on how to run a country.

**luna** · 03-16-2004, 06:04 PM

Wolfie- it's $449 for the entire month. As for low income housing, my understanding is that it is incredibly difficult to get low income housing that takes your finances into consideration. No one is obligated to adjust what they charge a tenant for income.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

I decided I was getting sucked into an absurd arguement and bailed.

Y'all debate this issue 'till you're blue in the face, but it's a ridiculous proposition that would never pass a popular vote and is unconstitutional besides, so.....

Here here. I too am bailing on this- it is a useless discussion.

**Wolfie** · 03-16-2004, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phyllis

Ummm...yea.....sureeeeeeeee

I have gone years without sex and survived so I am pretty sure I can contain myself if the situation warrents it

**Wolfie** · 03-16-2004, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by =luna=

Wolfie- it's $449 for the entire month. As for low income housing, my understanding is that it is incredibly difficult to get low income housing that takes your finances into consideration. No one is obligated to adjust what they charge a tenant for income.

In Indiana, I lived in an apartment complex that residents with lower incomes paid less than I did for the same apartment. Not sure how it is in Kentucky.

03-16-2004, 06:32 AM	#46 (permalink)
Revan Join Date: May 2003 Location: Kent; UK Age: 34 Posts: 190	Re: Sex and Kids you know, i was following this thread closely and kept thining why is Luna-tic not replying. Nice, really nice Luna. I was trying to come up with hypothetical examples but nothing works as good as personal experience. Especially from someone wolfie knows. This is definitely a check, but will it be a mate?

03-16-2004, 10:43 AM	#47 (permalink)
Pokerface Join Date: May 2003 Location: MD, USA Age: 30 Posts: 5,773	Re: Sex and Kids Wolfie does have his point, though. I'll grant that it's painted with incredibly broad strokes, but if you boil it down to limit it a bit, it's a point worth arguing, in principle if not in specifics. Welfare exists because we as a society have decided that helping others when they are less than capable of helping themselves is important, because we feel a responsibility towards our fellow man. I don't think it's wholly unreasonable to expect that fellow man to accept the help in a manner that limits the hardship on society as opposed to raises it. Now, sterilization is more than likely not the answer to those who would have children despite adverse times, but because there is no clear solution doesn't mean that the problem should be ignored, for while there are cases such as Luna where the outcome is commendable, there are also cases (from people we probably won't hear from) where Wolfie's theory pans out. The governments see fit to hand out money in other arenas based on certain criteria: scores in the such and such percentile will get your school more funding, research into such and such disease that the government feels is important will get more grant money than the other disease it cares less about. I'm not advocating less funding for having a kid, but I'm trying to illustrate that criteria have been and can be set to sway behavior, and perhaps there's some sort of solution in that realm. If we as a people are going to help those down on their luck, expecting that they're not going to dig the hole any deeper is a reasonable request, I think. __________________ NS Game Officer. TF2 Admin. BF2 Admin / Scripter. PM with issues. Tempus: Pokerface is nailing it right on the head. Everyone who is arguing against him is simply arguing against reality. <anmuzi> it is not permitted to have privacy or anonymity <LazyEye> yeah when I play on TG the server digs though my trash Arm yourself with knowledge: TG NS TF2 BF2

03-16-2004, 11:27 AM	#48 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Sex and Kids I understand not wanting to write that welfare check, but I prefer that to giving government this sort of power. This is a radical and, I think, very dangerous idea. Furthermore, the notion that government would step in and sterilize citizens for legal behavior while not sterilizing others for the same behavior is unconstitutional. Finally, it would never pass muster. What legislator will back this idea? How many people want government making this sort of decision? It's a non-starter. Finally, if you are a religious person at all, then you understand God's ability to transform a life. No-one is so low, or so high, that their lives can't rise or fall with astonishing speed. Best regards, \|S&P\| leejo Last edited by leejo; 03-16-2004 at 02:51 PM.

03-16-2004, 04:33 PM	#55 (permalink)
DudeMan Join Date: May 2003 Location: london England Age: 22 Posts: 3,258	Re: Sex and Kids oh by the way ... i think leejo was a bit pissed at someone... deleted by leejo deleted by leejo deletd by leejo....

03-16-2004, 04:46 PM	#56 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Sex and Kids No, I decided I was getting sucked into an absurd arguement and bailed. Y'all debate this issue 'till you're blue in the face, but it's a ridiculous proposition that would never pass a popular vote and is unconstitutional besides, so.....

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links