Wolfie

So sterilization is out. Why not my compromise then? No increase in welfare money to those that have kids while on welfare to begin with?

And I might point out that while sterilization is unconstitutional, so is forcing others to support irresponsible parents for bringing kids into this world and not being able to financially support them

Benny_

I can see your point Wolf, it is infuriating, but my tax dollar gets wasted on a lot of other crap too.

Purely out of personal interest are you a dad? I would guess not, but hey I could be wrong.

DudeMan

WAIT THIS IS A BAD THING?

they were poorer so the governement helps out so thay can lead a better life with more oppotunities than if they didnt hav any money at all.

DudeMan

yeah yeah who cares who gets hurt as long as wolfie has 10 dollars a week more in his pocket.

2 words

self centered.

DudeMan

i sincerely hope not... i am glad hitler didnt have kids.

Revan

it somehow feels that I keep repeating myself here...

There are those misfortunate ones who have found themselves in a situation that theythemselves did not choose. A small percentage of those are the bad apples who will take what they can from goverment funds just because. We pay for both types.

To be honest, a child who never asked to be brought into this world shoul not suffer in any way. His parents are the ones who might have maid a bad choice but ultimately the child has nothing to do with their decisions however wrong they might have been.

Truly, I have no problem paying for a child who is in such a situation. What bothers me is when a child does not get the benefit of the extra money a welfare program is giving to his parents. Again, this is only a small percentage of people who do this sort of thing. I myself would thing that greater majority of parents do take care of their children first and then of themselves. In such a situation my money is well spent.

Yes Wolfie, that small percentage of people who will exploit the system for their benefit and have a child just to increse their benefits are the people I too have a problem with. However the alternative is never as simple as it may sound. If we want to be sure that each child in such a case is well taken care of by their parents we have to pay more money for people who would do this job of checking up on every family which is on welfare with children. Even if I would agree to pay more taxes for this enterprise I doubt there would be an easy way to deal with the parents who are mistreating the child or not offering it the benefits that are clearly for them.

They could be taken away from their family, this would again mean that we are paying for them to be placed somewhere where at least we would know they are taken care of. It feels like everything is falling back to the parenthood. In this case it would be the quality of patenting they recieved to grow up thinking and doing what they do. Which would be the reason why they are abusing the system.

A child should not be in such environment in the first place. All my taxes that go to unfortunate families and their children are to an extent well spent. I never know when I may find myself in such a situation. I may never but helping a fellow citizen through bad times is a good deed, the one no one should shy from. I would very much like to know that if nothing else greater proportion of children from families on felfare will get a good chance at a life ahead. And those few unfortunate once may be picked up by social services and put into care.

We may not have much options here and the systems fails all too often.However, it is the only system we have and perhaps this is where our attention should be placed. To alter the system to protect the children and not to punish the parents in any overly harsh way. Since losing the child is as bad as it gets.

jex

Is it fair to pay for a child's upbringing if it's not you own? This is a joke right? Is anyone seriously advocating that in a civilised society we should let the parents fend for themselves and not allow them state benefits? For one that is short-sighted to say the least. I just hope it's your house they burgle at gunpoint when they go looking for extra cash because they have a starving child to feed.

Secondly how much of a facsist does one have to be to even think like this? We're talking about children here. Surely as a race we should be looking to advance ourselves spiritually and mentally or wtf are we doing here? If we do not care about others where exactly do you think we'll end up as a society? If you have nothing better to do than moan about other people then your life is seriously lacking in a lot of things.

Wolfie

I would like to thank everyone who has participated in this thread. I have found it highly interesting what people have said and thought about this topic and me in particular.

For example, I have noticed that people have automatically assumed that all I was concerned about was money and would put that in front of a child's well being. If you care to notice my first post, my extreme suggestion would cost the government more in the long run (surgery costs to sterilize both parents and the cost for the government to be the sole provider of the child). Each suggestion I have made concerning this issue was a form of punishment for the parents who made a very bad choice bringing a kid into this world and knowing that they can not provide for them financially. However, since I did not come out and say this outright (instead choosing to hint in a subtle manner), people started to assume that all I was concerned about was the bottom line (cost to taxpayers).

Right now, two people can bring a child into this world while on welfare and there is no punishment in place for this irresponsible choice they made (I would rate bringing a child into this world knowing you can not provide for them the same as taking a life intentionally). The parties being punished for this choice are the kids and taxpayers. What punishment are the parents receiving? I know they are on welfare which some people feel is punishment enough but they were on welfare to begin with. If a man killed a prison guard while serving a 10 year sentence for assault and robbery, we would expect that person to be punished for his act, not let it slide because he is already serving time for something else.

RYN

Wow man...you have some issues.

__________________
"On My Commad, Unleash Hell"
"And Let Slip The Dogs Of War"

Wolfie

I never said it was a bad thing Dudeman. If you look at what I said and how I said it, it was simply a statement of fact. Do not assume I was implying it was a bad thing.

jex

So you expect to post something like that and we're to assume that they're not your thoughts? LOL the boy who cried Wolfie too many times ended up getting eaten.

Now you could be pretending it wasn't your thoughts because you were afraid to express them until you saw what others wrote - you've simply copped-out on this one. Or you could have genuinly have posted to get others thoughts - but how would they be any different than if you had posted saying "I don't believe in this but what do you guys think" - I don't think the responses would have been much different either way.

All you have achieved here imo is to make yourself an object of deception. Who will trust what you post here again?

__________________
Jex

DudeMan

wolfie look at the question mark and dont tell me who implied what thanks.

p.s say what you want about your original post but your comments are still highly un- ethical and to put it bluntly pathetic.

i agree with you there Jex you could refuse people benefits and try to punish them, but as many people have learned in other countries. try to opress the poor and the poor will rip your ****ing head off.

ie soviet union,

there are 50-100 times more poor than rich and the rich rely on the poor to do some of their most basic needs, so if the bourgios try to bring sanctions on the poor for breeding then the poor will rise up and kill the rich.

or is all this too inflamitory and stupid.... i think so, and it remnds me of the centemnets you are expressing wolfie.

luna

Wolfie,

as opposed to feeling the need to "punish" the poor for having a child when financially unstable, how about considering rewarding the poor who make the "right" choice? Make the benefits more substantial if you keep your family size smaller.

This reminds me of China where if you have only one child, you receive educational and economical advantages. Good in theory, bad in human rights violations.

__________________
Resurgent's New Motivational Motto:
"Now train harder! Live inside your character! If it dies, YOU DIE! Focus!"

Jesus had a soulstone.

Wolfie

I have no issues with that suggestion. I was also thinking about a payback. Once the couple gets off of welfare, they negogiate with the government to pay back the additional money they received for the child conceived during their time on welfare. This of course would be above the normal taxes they are already paying but it would setup so they can pay back the government over time, interest free. Kind of like loaning money to a family member and letting them pay you back at a later time for the exact amount they borrowed from you.

Wolfie

What deception did I do Jex? Just because I didn't say "I have no issues with welfare", does that mean I purposely deceived you into making an erronous assumption on what I felt or thought? I never once suggested taking welfare completely away, nor did I implied that I was looking at reducing welfare. Hell, my first post would have increase the overall spending and not reduced it. So am I to blame because you automatically assumed I was against welfare or should you stop and think that maybe assuming something without facts to back it up is something you should strive not to do in the future?