• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Drug Screening Required for Welfare

WakeandBake said:
jhmd believes that poverty is a way of life created by entitlement programs

end of thread
Click to expand...

No one ever said it was created by it, but if you're ignoring the fact that our unsustainable programs perpetuate life at the subsistence level, you're being deliberately ignorant.
 
Actually, I'm quite sarcastic. But don't try to bullshit a bullshitter. You believe Sarah Palin is the future of the 'pubs and a Tea Party leader.

It's ok. We all make mistakes. I once thought Bill Bradley would be a great president. Shit happens.

But don't pussy out now and pretend you were joking all these past 3 years. You dig her, and not in the "she seems like she would be dirty in the sack" kind of way the rest of us view her.
 
If you want to believe I think Sarah Palin is the future of the Republican party then knock yourself out.
 
Last edited:
WakeandBake said:
jhmd believes that poverty is a way of life created by entitlement programs

end of thread
Click to expand...

Baked, I can introduce you to dozens of people that are perfectly content with a housing voucher, food stamps, a utility subsidy debit card and the 15-hour per week job they need to stay eligible for all of that.

If you don't think there are millions of people just like that in the system, then you need to put down the bong, clear your head and spend a little more time in the real word. Yes, welfare is temporary for some, but to a large percentage of recipients it IS a way of life. The only aspirations they have are to see how they can qualify for another government handout (e.g. get kid declared as having some kind of disability to get an SSI check).
 
Voluntary sterilization program would be fine. I think the number offered should be much more than $5000. Open to all women between the age of 18 and 40. Number offered should probably decline after having kids (i.e., $40,000 for no kids, $30,000 after one kid, etc.). If you already have kids, certain of the funds could be held in trust for the kid(s) you have. I have no idea if $40,000 makes sense - calculate the average cost of a kid on the government, and that is the figure.

Wealthy people can also take advantage of this program, and presumably would once they decided to not have any more children. Would it disproportionately "impact" the poor? Absolutely. They would be given additional money in exchange for having fewer kids, as opposed to the other way around. If some is set aside for the kid, the kid has a better chance to free him/herself from poverty later in life.

I am just glad someone else suggested it first on this thread, since there is little doubt that it will be unpopular amongst this crowd.
 
I've been suggesting the cash-for-sterilization program for years on this and the old board. It would help solve an enormous amount of the country's problems, and would be a completely voluntary program available to everyone that nobody could blame on anybody else.
 
84Deac said:
Baked, I can introduce you to dozens of people that are perfectly content with a housing voucher, food stamps, a utility subsidy debit card and the 15-hour per week job they need to stay eligible for all of that.

If you don't think there are millions of people just like that in the system, then you need to put down the bong, clear your head and spend a little more time in the real word. Yes, welfare is temporary for some, but to a large percentage of recipients it IS a way of life. The only aspirations they have are to see how they can qualify for another government handout (e.g. get kid declared as having some kind of disability to get an SSI check).
Click to expand...

I'm sure you can 84Deac, I'm sure you can. Thanks for the tip about the real world, I'll give it some consideration after I put in my 60 hours of work this week. And your anecdotal examples of how people game the system are fascinating, I've never heard them from a conservative poster on this here board. You just proved jhmd's theory right there - brilliant. That must be what the 'real world' looks like, eh?

Just for those of us who are too stoned to accept your declaration of "a large percentage" out of hand, can you provide some kind of proof for that or is it just your opinion? Because I think you have it wrong. I think that a large percentage are temporary, and a small percentage are perpetual gamers of the system. In fact, I recall living through the welfare reform of the 90s that Gingrich championed and claimed a lot of credit for. I gave him his props. The welfare rolls shrunk considerably, with a little help from low unemployment and lots of opportunity. Now 10 years later the economy is in a down-cycle and you now blame the poor and accuse "a large percentage" of them of gaming the system. What happened to the reforms the Contract With America put in place just a few years ago? Is it your position it was all bullshit, and the reforms couldn't withstand an economic downturn? Are you trying to have your cake and eat it too?

When you and jhmd pull the welfare benefits from these people, what happens then? You live in a fantasy world, not me. You are blatantly blaming the poor for being poor, and blaming the programs for keeping them poor. That absolves you and I guess the rest of us who aren't poor from any responsibility for the situation when we are all, at least indirectly, responsible for the fate and condition of the nation's economy. And the condition of that economy determines how many Americans live on the dole. When you favor policy that tilts the playing field toward the "have's" and away from the "have-nots" - you get larger welfare rolls.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
I've been suggesting the cash-for-sterilization program for years on this and the old board. It would help solve an enormous amount of the country's problems, and would be a completely voluntary program available to everyone that nobody could blame on anybody else.
Click to expand...

I have nothing against making sterilization more available to people as well as handing out condoms etc to prevent unwanted pregnancy, sure why not.

but it will "solve an enormous amount of America's problems?" I don't see it.

You guys think you can solve poverty through attrition? That would be hilarious if it wasn't so insane. really? How does that work exactly?
 
Sterilization programs?

I didn't realize RULZ was posting over here with so many different handles.
 
WakeandBake said:
I have nothing against making sterilization more available to people as well as handing out condoms etc to prevent unwanted pregnancy, sure why not.

but it will "solve an enormous amount of America's problems?" I don't see it.

You guys think you can solve poverty through attrition? That would be hilarious if it wasn't so insane. really? How does that work exactly?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't limit the offer to any income group. I know plenty of upper income earners that I'd be happy to know weren't reproducing.

Almost on a daily basis I get the joy of dealing with 3rd and 4th generation losers/moochers. Yesterday afternoon I got to talk with grandma (33 years old), and daughter (16 years old) who had her 2 kids in tow...both wearing nothing but a damned diaper. What's so terrible is that govt. dependence is all that they know. We as a society have created a permanent underclass that perpetuates itself every 15 or so years.

Will trying to break the cycle of dependence solve our massive fiscal problems? Nope. Not even close, but why not try to break the cycle.
 
So how would you break the cycle? Leave the grandma, daughter, and 2 kids out in the cold?
 
SCDeac said:
I wouldn't limit the offer to any income group. I know plenty of upper income earners that I'd be happy to know weren't reproducing.

Almost on a daily basis I get the joy of dealing with 3rd and 4th generation losers/moochers. Yesterday afternoon I got to talk with grandma (33 years old), and daughter (16 years old) who had her 2 kids in tow...both wearing nothing but a damned diaper. What's so terrible is that govt. dependence is all that they know. We as a society have created a permanent underclass that perpetuates itself every 15 or so years.

Will trying to break the cycle of dependence solve our massive fiscal problems? Nope. Not even close, but why not try to break the cycle.
Click to expand...

since you quoted me, answer my question. How do you solve poverty through attrition?

I'm quite certain we all want to break the cycle, we just differ on how to do that. You seem to be hanging desperately onto the theory that poverty is something these people have chosen through freewill and pass along to their offspring as a sort of 'career.' And that tremendous opportunity for upward mobility is within their grasp, and they just aren't taking it because they are lazy - they are happier being poor because it is just too much work to take advantage of the glut of opportunities out there for them to get rich too. So, if they were starved of aid they would be forced to act, forced to participate in the upward mobility that is out there for them. Or, that they would voluntarily sterilize themselves for life for five grand and then when it ran out they would be forced into the workforce and that indigence in America would become a thing of the past.

And I'm accused of being too stoned and not living in the real world.
 
Last edited:
WakeandBake said:
This is quite true, and I am certain we all agree on this.

We disagree on how we have created it.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Exploding wealth stratification and the gradual stagnation and pricing out of the shrinking middle class has created a permanent underclass.
 
And until we totally eliminate the insane and cynical politics that wealth is created by those at the top, we'll never get ot that point.
 
It's amazing how conservative claim the wealth/income gaps aren't the problem but the solutions to them are.
 
WakeandBake said:
I have nothing against making sterilization more available to people as well as handing out condoms etc to prevent unwanted pregnancy, sure why not.

but it will "solve an enormous amount of America's problems?" I don't see it.

You guys think you can solve poverty through attrition? That would be hilarious if it wasn't so insane. really? How does that work exactly?
Click to expand...

Uh, it works by its own definition. If there are less poor people, then there is less poverty.

Take the white trash capital of the world, Gastonia. Say there are 1,000 kids in each elementary school class. With the voluntary sterilization program in place, say that number drops to 600. That means less strain on the school system, less strain on the police, less strain on entitlement programs, etc. It also means that the 600 kids are more likely to have actually been wanted by their parents and therefore not just ignored growing up. So you've got better family structures and better education for those kids, which leads to them being more productive members of society. So not only does it simply lower the number of people in poverty by preventing additional unwanted births, but those kids who are still nonetheless born into poverty are in better position to work themselves out of poverty as they grow up.
 
RJKarl said:
And until we totally eliminate the insane and cynical politics that wealth is created by those at the top, we'll never get ot that point.
Click to expand...

who creates wealth?
 
Instead of sterilizing poor folks why don't we just eat their extra babies? Everybody wins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top