PDA

View Full Version : Paying people not to breed / charging them if they do


BIG_DADDY
06-08-2006, 11:16 AM
Driving through a welfare momma neighborhood this last weekend I came up with a great idea. Why don't we pay these losers to not breed and charge them if they do. Once a month if you are not pregnant and have no kids you get a check for $100. If you ever do have a kid not only do you not get welfare you must pay $200 month per kid to keep them or do it in community service. What do you think?

Donger
06-08-2006, 11:17 AM
Driving through a welfare momma neighborhood this last weekend I came up with a great idea. Why don't we pay these losers to not breed and charge them if they do. Once a month if you are not pregnant and have no kids you get a check for $100. If you ever do have a kid not only do you not get welfare you must pay $200 month per kid to keep them or do it in community service. What do you think?

The world needs ditch-diggers, too.

Halfcan
06-08-2006, 11:18 AM
Better yet put a time limit on welfare-6 months max.

JBucc
06-08-2006, 11:23 AM
I want to get paid to not have kids

Nzoner
06-08-2006, 11:54 AM
When I owned a little restaurant in downtown I once overheard a welfare momma say that she needed to find another man because she needed another kid for the extra cash.

Personally,with an attitude like that I say you're welcome to one child after that we pay to have your tubes tied.

BIG_DADDY
06-08-2006, 11:55 AM
The world needs ditch-diggers, too.

It's funny it reminded me of about 20 years ago when I moved into an apartment for 6 months. I had no idea when I went there that almost everyone there was a welfare mother. These big fat ugly bitches getting paid to pop out kids just went up my ass a mile. The kids were dirty wearing donated old clothes living off dry bowls of cheerios while mom fed her fat ****ing face on good grub curteousy of the John Q. Taxpayer and watched Oprah type shows all day. Naturally at 1 AM some crack head loser would show up to do her so she could pop out another kid. It was pathetic. We have got to quit paying the bottom few percent for popping out kids. This was just an idea, you got a better one?

Donger
06-08-2006, 11:57 AM
It's funny it reminded me of about 20 years ago when I moved into an apartment for 6 months. I had no idea when I went there that almost everyone there was a welfare mother. These big fat ugly bitches getting paid to pop out kids just went up my ass a mile. The kids were dirty wearing donated old clothes living off dry bowls of cheerios while mom fed her fat ****ing face on good grub curteousy of the John Q. Taxpayer and watched Oprah type shows all day. Naturally at 1 AM some crack head loser would show up to do her so she could pop out another kid. It was pathetic. We have got to quit paying the bottom few percent for popping out kids. This was just an idea, you got a better one?

Soylent Green.

Fire Me Boy!
06-08-2006, 11:59 AM
IT'S PEOPLE!!!! IT'S PEOPLE!!!!


http://www.progets.com/simpsons/pics/holding%20box%20of%20Soylent%20Green.gif

Fire Me Boy!
06-08-2006, 12:01 PM
Anyone remember the old SNL skit with Phil Hartman?

Soylent White is people... IT'S PEOPLE!

Soylent Red is people... IT'S PEOPLE!!!


ROFL

Mr. Laz
06-08-2006, 12:01 PM
no tax break or welfare bonus for more than 2 children per household UNLESS those children are adopted.


society has a reasonable right to expect that if a couple has more than 2 kids that said couple has the money to support them.


so if you're gonna have 10 kids, then you better not need the extra help in paying for them.


adopting helps society in other ways so it's not included in the limit

Cochise
06-08-2006, 12:31 PM
Better yet put a time limit on welfare-6 months max.

You can't cut off a kid because his parents are asshats.

BIG_DADDY
06-08-2006, 01:10 PM
You can't cut off a kid because his parents are asshats.


You act like the kids are the ones benefitting from this money. It's been my experience that the mother is the one benefitting. That's why the system has to change. We have to quit rewarding the bottom 5% of society for reproducing.

Brock
06-08-2006, 01:29 PM
You act like the kids are the ones benefitting from this money. It's been my experience that the mother is the one benefitting. That's why the system has to change. We have to quit rewarding the bottom 5% of society for reproducing.

What do you mean it's been your experience?

I agree, punishing the kids because their parents are worthless is not a good idea.

BIG_DADDY
06-08-2006, 01:37 PM
What do you mean it's been your experience?

I agree, punishing the kids because their parents are worthless is not a good idea.

5th post in this thread I described the one time I was really around this.

el borracho
06-08-2006, 01:38 PM
I would be in favor of placing reasonable time and/ or dollar amount limits on welfare programs. Beyond those limits I would still give benefits to the families (so as not to punish the kids) but I would sterilize the recipients (so that taxpayers aren't continually paying for more mistakes).

On the subject of fixing the world, I would also make jail cost money. People who don't break the law have to pay for their own housing, utilities, food and health care. Why should criminals get these things for free? I would make jail a box where you sat with only the amenities you are able to pay for. Of course I would put programs in place where criminals could work for their keep but if they can't or won't work then too bad. Can't afford food?-Don't eat. Can't afford health care?-Die. Sounds kind of cruel but I figure that if you are a good person who messed up you probably have people willing to help you pay your bills and if you are not a good person then you can rot. Oh, I would also give all prisoners the option of euthanasia for free.

Oh yeah, I would also sterilize deadbeat dads. If you know you have a child and you can't or won't pay then you should not be allowed to have any more, IMO. "Deadbeat," of course, assumes that the father is aware he has a child.

ChiefaRoo
06-08-2006, 01:56 PM
These people shouldn't reproduce, no doubt about that. However, this is America and no doubt any sort of legislation like this would be smacked down as unconstitutional even if the voters would got for it (and they wouldn't).

What needs to be done is to give the kids of these terrible people a chance to lift themselves out of poverty through schooling, counseling and effective child services.

Baconeater
06-08-2006, 01:58 PM
You can't cut off a kid because his parents are asshats.
And they have figured that out. It's a way of life for them, and there's not a damn thing that can be done about it for that very reason.

BIG_DADDY
06-08-2006, 02:00 PM
These people shouldn't reproduce, no doubt about that. However, this is America and no doubt any sort of legislation like this would be smacked down as unconstitutional even if the voters would got for it (and they wouldn't).

What needs to be done is to give the kids of these terrible people a chance to lift themselves out of poverty through schooling, counseling and effective child services.

More unlimited taxation, wonderful answer. Let me guess you're a Democrat? How about a one time 10k check for sterilizing when you have no kids and 5k if you have one? Why would it be unconstitutional to offer somebody money for not having kids please explain that to me.

Baconeater
06-08-2006, 02:02 PM
More unlimited taxation, wonderful answer. Let me guess you're a Democrat? How about a one time 10k check for sterilizing when you have no kids and 5k if you have one? Why would it be unconstitutional to offer somebody money for not having kids please explain that to me.
The problem is unless you are going to offer them more than what they would receive if they DID have kids, they're not going to go for it. If you did offer them more, what would be the point?

Pitt Gorilla
06-08-2006, 02:05 PM
I would be in favor of placing reasonable time and/ or dollar amount limits on welfare programs. Beyond those limits I would still give benefits to the families (so as not to punish the kids) but I would sterilize the recipients (so that taxpayers aren't continually paying for more mistakes).

On the subject of fixing the world, I would also make jail cost money. People who don't break the law have to pay for their own housing, utilities, food and health care. Why should criminals get these things for free? I would make jail a box where you sat with only the amenities you are able to pay for. Of course I would put programs in place where criminals could work for their keep but if they can't or won't work then too bad. Can't afford food?-Don't eat. Can't afford health care?-Die. Sounds kind of cruel but I figure that if you are a good person who messed up you probably have people willing to help you pay your bills and if you are not a good person then you can rot. Oh, I would also give all prisoners the option of euthanasia for free.

Oh yeah, I would also sterilize deadbeat dads. If you know you have a child and you can't or won't pay then you should not be allowed to have any more, IMO. "Deadbeat," of course, assumes that the father is aware he has a child.That all sounds pretty good to me.

BIG_DADDY
06-08-2006, 02:06 PM
The problem is unless you are going to offer them more than what they would receive if they DID have kids, they're not going to go for it. If you did offer them more, what would be the point?

You're kidding right? They want the money now. We should never pay anyone for having kids. MOF they should have to pay $200 a month per child just to have them.

ChiefaRoo
06-08-2006, 02:09 PM
More unlimited taxation, wonderful answer. Let me guess you're a Democrat? How about a one time 10k check for sterilizing when you have no kids and 5k if you have one? Why would it be unconstitutional to offer somebody money for not having kids please explain that to me.

Big Daddy, I'm a conservative (in the mold of Newt, Reagan and my long lost brother Sean Hannity). Note, never once did I say raise taxes nor should we. But get real these women are going to keep doing it. I say take the kids away from them if they prove to be abusive and then use the monies on the kids to at least give them a fighting chance of having a life.

If you could get a person to VOLUNTARILY not have kids and pay them then fine but who in the Government do you want to administer this program? It gives me chills to think of some powercentric civil servant (who could be corrupted) who would administer a program that amounts govt. sponsored sterilization with a budget.

I don't want the American government to intrude into American life anymore than they already have. I say save the kids via EFFECTIVE child services (assuming these mom's are not properly taking care of their babies) thus taking the incentive away as they'll get NO money for having the child.


Bottom line it's a moot point as it's politically dead on arrival. The American people aren't going to go for anything like this. I mean it goes against our way of life including "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" the words government sponsored sterilization doesn't belong.

PS- I'm against Govt. funded abortion too.

sedated
06-08-2006, 02:16 PM
I agree, punishing the kids because their parents are worthless is not a good idea.

It's less a matter of punishing the kids, more a matter of discouraging these burdens-on-society from producing more burdens-on-society

Bob Dole
06-08-2006, 02:16 PM
These people shouldn't reproduce, no doubt about that. However, this is America and no doubt any sort of legislation like this would be smacked down as unconstitutional even if the voters would got for it (and they wouldn't).

Because these same shitbags actually have the right to vote.

It ranks right up there with congress getting to approve their own pay raises.

ChiefaRoo
06-08-2006, 02:19 PM
Because these same shitbags actually have the right to vote.

It ranks right up there with congress getting to approve their own pay raises.


I don't think it's just the losers who are abusing the system that you have to worry about. Heck Bob you know they don't vote anyway. I'm telling you that if you bring the term "Govt. sterilization" to a vote then soccer mom's and women in general around this country will overwelmingly vote against it. Add in another 25% to 35% of men who would do the same and you've got yourself a dead issue.

Fish
06-08-2006, 02:26 PM
I like the ideas... but there would be no way to implement it at this time. The guhbment is not going to overhaul the welfare program until the tires fall of and the program is in flames. Welfare mom's know exactly how to manipulate the system, and they will continue to do so.

I'd like to see welfare as a more temporary solution. Maybe 1 year to get your shit together and take responsibility for your kids and then the welfare money is cut off. I'd bet that for most of these lazy ass welfare families if it truly came down to working or starving they could find a job....

Either that or set it up to where in order to get on a welfare program you had to go through a sterilization process....

And yes, most of these ideas sound cold-hearted, but I think society MUST be cold-hearted at times in order to sustain itself.

picasso
06-08-2006, 02:27 PM
I would be in favor of placing reasonable time and/ or dollar amount limits on welfare programs. Beyond those limits I would still give benefits to the families (so as not to punish the kids) but I would sterilize the recipients (so that taxpayers aren't continually paying for more mistakes).

On the subject of fixing the world, I would also make jail cost money. People who don't break the law have to pay for their own housing, utilities, food and health care. Why should criminals get these things for free? I would make jail a box where you sat with only the amenities you are able to pay for. Of course I would put programs in place where criminals could work for their keep but if they can't or won't work then too bad. Can't afford food?-Don't eat. Can't afford health care?-Die. Sounds kind of cruel but I figure that if you are a good person who messed up you probably have people willing to help you pay your bills and if you are not a good person then you can rot. Oh, I would also give all prisoners the option of euthanasia for free.

Oh yeah, I would also sterilize deadbeat dads. If you know you have a child and you can't or won't pay then you should not be allowed to have any more, IMO. "Deadbeat," of course, assumes that the father is aware he has a child.

What if you have been wrongly imprisoned like the guy that was found innocent and spent 18 years in prison?
What about deadbeat mothers out there? Will you rip the tubes out of those wastes of human life? Please do start with my oldest boys mother, she owes me $65k and the state of Missouri won't make her pay it or throw her in jail because she is on disability and has other kids.

BIG_DADDY
06-08-2006, 02:29 PM
I don't think it's just the losers who are abusing the system that you have to worry about. Heck Bob you know they don't vote anyway. I'm telling you that if you bring the term "Govt. sterilization" to a vote then soccer mom's and women in general around this country will overwelmingly vote against it. Add in another 25% to 35% of men who would do the same and you've got yourself a dead issue.


I don't know some things are changing. Our election here this week they voted down every measure that involved spending money. That NEVER happened before. We also saw that dog killing bitch Speier go down. Ahhhnold will continue to be our governator here. At least I know our state won't go bankrupt now. Phil tax and spend Angelides doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of beating him.

Fire Me Boy!
06-08-2006, 02:31 PM
The sad part is a lot of them don't want more. I knew a girl at my old job that begged and pleaded NOT to get a raise because it meant she wouldn't qualify for welfare.

Baconeater
06-08-2006, 02:37 PM
You're kidding right? They want the money now. We should never pay anyone for having kids. MOF they should have to pay $200 a month per child just to have them.
OK, you got me there. They probably would just rather have the money now.
I don't think it's just the losers who are abusing the system that you have to worry about. Heck Bob you know they don't vote anyway. I'm telling you that if you bring the term "Govt. sterilization" to a vote then soccer mom's and women in general around this country will overwelmingly vote against it. Add in another 25% to 35% of men who would do the same and you've got yourself a dead issue.
Bullseye! I don't think the majority of people know how bad it is. I've had to clean up after these dirtbags and these children that they are so worried about often grow up in squalor. They don't have quality lives to begin with.

el borracho
06-08-2006, 02:41 PM
What if you have been wrongly imprisoned like the guy that was found innocent and spent 18 years in prison?
What about deadbeat mothers out there? Will you rip the tubes out of those wastes of human life? Please do start with my oldest boys mother, she owes me $65k and the state of Missouri won't make her pay it or throw her in jail because she is on disability and has other kids.
Wrongful imprisonment is horrible no matter what the circumstances. How would having to work or independently pay for jail costs make it worse than it already is?

I'm not sure what you mean by "deadbeat mother". If that means a mother who can't or won't pay for her existing child then, yes, I would sterilize her. It's simple, really. If you can't afford the kids you have then you don't need to have any more.

BIG_DADDY
06-08-2006, 02:50 PM
Wrongful imprisonment is horrible no matter what the circumstances. How would having to work or independently pay for jail costs make it worse than it already is?

I'm not sure what you mean by "deadbeat mother". If that means a mother who can't or won't pay for her existing child then, yes, I would sterilize her. It's simple, really. If you can't afford the kids you have then you don't need to have any more.

Our jail system should run itself and not cost us a dime but that will never happen because they are too busy raping the public. The war on drugs was the best thing to ever happen to prison bureaucracy. Justify spending a million to kill somebody. It's insane and shows just how corrupt the system is.

Moooo
06-08-2006, 02:52 PM
Driving through a welfare momma neighborhood this last weekend I came up with a great idea. Why don't we pay these losers to not breed and charge them if they do. Once a month if you are not pregnant and have no kids you get a check for $100. If you ever do have a kid not only do you not get welfare you must pay $200 month per kid to keep them or do it in community service. What do you think?

They do that in India I think. In America this is illegal. Though you do bring up a point why its not illegal to take out less for taxes due to someone having a kid, but it is to pay them not to have one...

The biggest problem other than the constitutionalism of it would be to say who can't have kids and who can. Not everyone could be punished, and you couldn't do it geographically, so you'd almost have to do it economically, and that opens up all sorts of worms.

Moooo

Mr. Laz
06-08-2006, 02:57 PM
The biggest problem other than the constitutionalism of it would be to say who can't have kids and who can.

Moooo
it wouldn't be ......... it would be the government choosing how to spend it's money and how to tax.


nobody is saying that people will be locked up if you have more kids.


but if you have one of these BROODS for whatever reason ...... catholics,welfare money whatever ........ then you better be ready financially to handle it

KCChiefsMan
06-08-2006, 03:04 PM
I couldn't agree with BD more. But I have an idea of my own...mandatory sterilization/abortion

Brock
06-08-2006, 03:05 PM
I couldn't agree with BD more. But I have an idea of my own...mandatory sterilization/abortion

We agree. Report to the nearest facility at once.

Mr. Laz
06-08-2006, 03:07 PM
i don't know about sterilization ... but implanting one of the 5 yr birth control devices into some of these whacked out crack whores that keep popping out kids might work.

Calcountry
06-08-2006, 03:14 PM
Driving through a welfare momma neighborhood this last weekend I came up with a great idea. Why don't we pay these losers to not breed and charge them if they do. Once a month if you are not pregnant and have no kids you get a check for $100. If you ever do have a kid not only do you not get welfare you must pay $200 month per kid to keep them or do it in community service. What do you think?Wow, how very Libertarian of you.

Frosty
06-08-2006, 03:16 PM
i don't know about sterilization ... but implanting one of the 5 yr birth control devices into some of these whacked out crack whores that keep popping out kids might work.

I think it should be mandatory for women on welfare to have these. If they want kids later, they should have to have a job for a period of time and prove they can fend for themselves and their kids. Having kids isn't a right if society has to pay for them.

Also, if someone is able bodied and on welfare, they should be out picking up trash or something. Where I live, too many kids consider welfare a career choice. :mad:

Calcountry
06-08-2006, 03:18 PM
You act like the kids are the ones benefitting from this money. It's been my experience that the mother is the one benefitting. That's why the system has to change. We have to quit rewarding the bottom 5% of society for reproducing.elitism.

Who gets to be on the "State board of reproductivity?". You, Taco John? How about JAss. God forbed somebody like Meme get on it.

BIG_DADDY
06-08-2006, 03:26 PM
elitism.

Who gets to be on the "State board of reproductivity?". You, Taco John? How about JAss. God forbed somebody like Meme get on it.

That's never what it was. It's just a changing the system from rewarding people for sitting on their fat ass and popping out kids to rewarding them if they don't and charging them if they do. You know how many junkies would go for a program like that? $100 a month or a 10k one time payment and you don't have to worry about society paying a fortune to support the bitch and all the ****ed up offspring she can pop out.

Halfcan
06-08-2006, 05:04 PM
Someone should pay my ex girlfriend to sew up her crotch. Just got some medical bills for her in the mail, evidently some loser knocked her up again. 3 kids from 3 different dads. What a Ho. I am glad its not mine-biatch was crazy!

BIG_DADDY
06-08-2006, 05:07 PM
Someone should pay my ex girlfriend to sew up her crotch. Just got some medical bills for her in the mail, evidently some loser knocked her up again. 3 kids from 3 different dads. What a Ho. I am glad its not mine-biatch was crazy!

3 kids from 3 different men, history repeats itself again.

Clint in Wichita
06-08-2006, 05:09 PM
Driving through a welfare momma neighborhood this last weekend I came up with a great idea. Why don't we pay these losers to not breed and charge them if they do. Once a month if you are not pregnant and have no kids you get a check for $100. If you ever do have a kid not only do you not get welfare you must pay $200 month per kid to keep them or do it in community service. What do you think?


An idea like this should be put to the test.

I say we test it everywhere south of the Mason-Dixon line, and see how it goes.

Mecca
06-08-2006, 07:01 PM
Someone should pay my ex girlfriend to sew up her crotch. Just got some medical bills for her in the mail, evidently some loser knocked her up again. 3 kids from 3 different dads. What a Ho. I am glad its not mine-biatch was crazy!

That's what you get for picking up chicks in the bowling alley.....

Count Alex's Wins
06-08-2006, 07:18 PM
You need some extra cash, BD?

Brock
06-08-2006, 10:39 PM
An idea like this should be put to the test.

I say we test it everywhere south of the Mason-Dixon line, and see how it goes.

Or at least a pilot program in Haysville.

JohnnyV13
06-08-2006, 11:12 PM
The idea of penalizing indigent people for having children is likely unconstitutional and violates their right to privacy. But, giving them money if they AREN'T pregnant is very likely ok in constitutional terms. Frankly, I think its an excellent idea. Paying welfare moms or mothers with state aid for child rearing NOT to have more children makes enormous sense to me.

Why subsidize people who are not socially effective to breed more children, so they can pass on their genes and their ineffective habits to more people?

BWillie
06-08-2006, 11:18 PM
I would pay Oprah and Dr. Phil not to breed.

Halfcan
06-08-2006, 11:36 PM
That's what you get for picking up chicks in the bowling alley.....

LOL-seriously glad I dumped her. She is bipolar-so the dude has probably split on her like the first two losers. I feel sorry for her girls-awesome kids that I was very fond of.

KILLER_CLOWN
06-08-2006, 11:50 PM
Yeah Great Idea, let's screw the legal americans and import some more citizens that will have 15 kids a piece because they don't have to abide by our laws...BRILLIANT!! I agree it's a major problem tho, and welcome to our 4th world country!