• 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

2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
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.
Click to expand...

Heckuva set of assumptions there - but whatever works for ya. :noidea:

So, to summarize - unwanted babies are the problem and need to be eliminated.
 
Last edited:
bigdoublezero said:
Instead of sterilizing poor folks why don't we just eat their extra babies? Everybody wins.
Click to expand...

Maybe we should offer everyone over 65 a lump sum to kill themselves?

No more poor people or shitty drivers, perfect.
 
PhDeac said:
So how would you break the cycle? Leave the grandma, daughter, and 2 kids out in the cold?
Click to expand...

Offer an instant cash incentive to not have more children. And at the same time make it clear that the current menu of programs won't be there in the future.

I feel genuinely sorry for the folks I see that are in need....I have little pity for the losers out there who have this opinion that society is obligated to take care of theri every need. And there are plenty of them out there like that who make absolutely no attempt to get off their asses.
 
I thnik all members of the Tea Party should be reuqired to do drugs. It would help them.
 
WakeandBake said:
Heckuva set of assumptions there - but whatever works for ya. :noidea:

So, to summarize - unwanted babies are the problem and need to be eliminated.
Click to expand...

What assumption(s) do you disagree with?

And, yes, unwanted (meaning unintended) babies are a huge part of the problem.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
What assumption(s) do you disagree with?

And, yes, unwanted (meaning unintended) babies are a huge part of the problem.
Click to expand...

well for starters:

You assume the level of pregnancies that are "unwanted."
You assume the level of participation in such a program.
You assume that its a zero sum game, that by eliminating one generation of "unwanted babies" the problem ends - that the void wouldn't be filled with new poor over time - because as has been pointed out, it is the wealth gap and dearth of upward mobility that perpetuates this class of people.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
Exactly. Exploding wealth stratification and the gradual stagnation and pricing out of the shrinking middle class has created a permanent underclass.
Click to expand...
Since you believe this to be the case, can you explain something that doesn't quite make sense to me. I have yet to have anyone that believes the middle class is shrinking give an explanation.

The attached chart is household income defined by quintiles (numbers of households) in constant 2007 dollars. If the middle class is shrinking why do all the quintiles constantly move up, even as our population increases? And since this is inflation adjusted, shouldn't there be a monetary threshold for what "middle class" is? The 50% quintile in 1950, which would probably be middle class, had a household income of around $25k. That is now where the 20% line is so doesn't that mean 80% of the population is living in the middle class?
 

Attachments

  • income.jpg
    income.jpg
    61.3 KB · Views: 10
InTheKnow said:
The babies may not be "unwanted" but what gives someone the right to have children they cannot afford?
Click to expand...

the right?

hmmmm....God? The universe? Their ovaries and testicles? Mother nature? I don't know- whoever is issuing rights in whoever's mind to do anything, I suppose.



wait...this is a parody, right? gotta be. no way that is a real question posed by an adult
 
Last edited:
WakeandBake said:
well for starters:

You assume the level of pregnancies that are "unwanted."
You assume the level of participation in such a program.
You assume that its a zero sum game, that by eliminating one generation of "unwanted babies" the problem ends - that the void wouldn't be filled with new poor over time - because as has been pointed out, it is the wealth gap and dearth of upward mobility that perpetuates this class of people.
Click to expand...

1. Okay, I had assumed 40% of Gastonia pregnancies are unwanted for purposes of the example. Though I personally think it is probably around 80%, let's drop it to 10%. That is still a 10% reduction of classroom size, social programs, etc. Even if it is as low as 1%, how is that a bad thing?

2. Again, even if it is 1%, that is still 1% better than we are now, with no downside. Nobody has to do it if they don't want to, it is a choice purely of free will to each person. And even if you are paying $25,000, that is a drop in the bucket compared to what would be spent on that kid by the government programs.

3. I'm not saying it is only a one-time program. Implement it and keep it out there as a constant offer.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
1. Okay, I had assumed 40% of Gastonia pregnancies are unwanted for purposes of the example. Though I personally think it is probably around 80%, let's drop it to 10%. That is still a 10% reduction of classroom size, social programs, etc. Even if it is as low as 1%, how is that a bad thing?

2. Again, even if it is 1%, that is still 1% better than we are now, with no downside. Nobody has to do it if they don't want to, it is a choice purely of free will to each person. And even if you are paying $25,000, that is a drop in the bucket compared to what would be spent on that kid by the government programs.

3. I'm not saying it is only a one-time program. Implement it and keep it out there as a constant offer.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty hardcore pro-abortion argument. It's a hardcore forced abortion argument.
 
It is prevention, not abortion. Would you equate wearing a condom with having an abortion? And it isn't forced on anybody. If somebody doesn't want it, they don't have to have it.
 
I wouldn't equate the offer of voluntary sterilization in exchange for cash with being pro-abortion. A voluntary sterilization program would lead to fewer abortions since the folks choosing to participate would not be getting knocked up or doing any more knocking up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top