View Poll Results: A license to have children?

Voters
122. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    31 25.41%
  • No

    85 69.67%
  • Undecided

    6 4.92%
Page 43 of 80 FirstFirst ... 33414243444553 ... LastLast
Results 421 to 430 of 792

Thread: A license to have children [W:81]

  1. #421
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: A license to have children [W:81]

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Good lord! We don't have enough shelters NOW.

    So your plan is to just allow people to have as many children as they want while collecting welfare and to put them up in shelters? That's your plan?

    And I don't understand your "if they can't" scenarios. These are people who are already collecting services that I'm referring to. People who are already collecting yet are still having more children that they cannot support or afford.

    I don't think your plan solves any problems and probably just adds more.
    HUD alone costs $44 billion per year.

    If you had 200 shelters (4 per state) and divide $44 billion into that...that leaves you $220 million dolars per shelter per year.

    I guarantee you they could get by on a fraction of that cost.

    Here is evidence:

    'After repeated requests from AIP, The Salvation Army has prepared consolidated audited financial statements of its 9,347 centers of operation that provide counseling, shelter and other assistance to nearly 27 million people. AIP is particularly pleased with this development since The Salvation Army, unlike most other major charities, is not required to file public information because it is considered by the IRS and state authorities to be a church. These statements show over $2 billion in income and $1.6 billion in expenses for fiscal 1996.'

    Salvation Army Finances & Governance- charitywatch.org

    The HUD money alone is over 25 times that. And that does not include the $75 billion for Food Stamps and ALL the other federal welfare programs.

    There is WAY more then enough.


    I am not going to argue with you on this.

    I believe I am right and you are wrong.

    And until you show links to unbiased, factual evidence to the contrary - further debate with you is clearly futile because your mind is obviously closed on the subject.

  2. #422
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: A license to have children [W:81]

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    HUD alone costs $44 billion per year.

    If you had 200 shelters (4 per state) and divide $44 billion into that...that leaves you $220 million dolars per shelter per year.

    I guarantee you they could get by on a fraction of that cost.

    Here is evidence:

    'After repeated requests from AIP, The Salvation Army has prepared consolidated audited financial statements of its 9,347 centers of operation that provide counseling, shelter and other assistance to nearly 27 million people. AIP is particularly pleased with this development since The Salvation Army, unlike most other major charities, is not required to file public information because it is considered by the IRS and state authorities to be a church. These statements show over $2 billion in income and $1.6 billion in expenses for fiscal 1996.'

    Salvation Army Finances & Governance- charitywatch.org

    The HUD money alone is over 25 times that. And that does not include the $75 billion for Food Stamps and ALL the other federal welfare programs.
    So state your proposal more clearly then. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that we should just do away with the welfare program as it is right now and move in the direction of shelters instead?

  3. #423
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: A license to have children [W:81]

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Why not? If they are not supporting themselves and are relying on the government/tax payers, why should they be able to have MORE children for US to support?

    I'm waiting for a GOOD answer to this question. Not "just because you can't do that." That's not a reason.
    Ummmm...yes it IS a reason.

    '1rea·son
    noun \ˈrē-zən\
    Definition of REASON
    1
    a : a statement offered in explanation or justification <gave reasons that were quite satisfactory> '


    Reason - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


    My words in post 412 explain my thoughts on this fairly well.

    If that is not 'good' enough for you...tough.




    Have a nice day.
    Last edited by DA60; 02-25-13 at 10:29 AM.

  4. #424
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: A license to have children [W:81]

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    Ummmm...yes it IS a reason.

    '1rea·son
    noun \ˈrē-zən\
    Definition of REASON
    1
    a : a statement offered in explanation or justification <gave reasons that were quite satisfactory> '


    Reason - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


    My words in post 412 explain my thoughts on this fairly well.

    If that is not 'good' enough for you...tough.


    Have a nice day.
    No "just because" is NOT a reason and is not good enough for me. This is a debate, so state some valid reasons. If you don't want to debate it, then fine.

  5. #425
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: A license to have children [W:81]

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    So state your proposal more clearly then. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that we should just do away with the welfare program as it is right now and move in the direction of shelters instead?
    Yes - except for the mentally/physically handicapped and the elderly - they were promised government assistance their whole lives. You cannot just yank that away frtom them when they did not bother (in many cases) to save up for their retirement because the government promised they would look after them.

    But the subject here is having children.

    So, as far as they are concerned - basically yes.
    Last edited by DA60; 02-25-13 at 10:38 AM.

  6. #426
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: A license to have children [W:81]

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    Yes - except for the mentally/physically handicapped and the elderly (they were promised government assistance their whole lives. You cannot just yank that away frtom them when they did not bother (in many cases) to save up for their retirement because the government promised they would look after them.

    But the subject here is having children.

    So, as far as they are concerned - basically yes.
    I could get behind the idea of doing away with welfare as it exists entirely and putting them up in so-called "shelters" where others are in control of the money. That way, we could be sure that the money is being spent correctly and that the children are being fed and clothed properly.

    It's an interesting proposal, but I'm not an economics expert and I'm not sure if that would be more cost effective or not.

  7. #427
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: A license to have children [W:81]

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    No "just because" is NOT a reason and is not good enough for me. This is a debate, so state some valid reasons. If you don't want to debate it, then fine.

    If your mind is open on the subject - I want to debate it.

    If it is not - I do not.

    Why waste both our times otherwise - you seem a reasonable sort.


    I cannot get behind the state basically telling it's poor people that - 'Hey, either sterilize yourself or starve to death'.

    The wealthiest country the world has ever seen. That spends almost as much on it's military as the entire world combined. And it cannot even offer food to it's starving unless they sterilize themselves.

    Sorry - I want no part of that country thank you.
    Last edited by DA60; 02-25-13 at 10:37 AM.

  8. #428
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: A license to have children [W:81]

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    I could get behind the idea of doing away with welfare as it exists entirely and putting them up in so-called "shelters" where others are in control of the money. That way, we could be sure that the money is being spent correctly and that the children are being fed and clothed properly.

    It's an interesting proposal, but I'm not an economics expert and I'm not sure if that would be more cost effective or not.
    Thank you for having an open mind...it's BLOODY refreshing around here.

    I'd rep you - but for some reason, I cannot.


    Plus I agree with you - it should be run by the private sector. That is a great point I will have to remember if I state it again.
    Last edited by DA60; 02-25-13 at 10:42 AM.

  9. #429
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: A license to have children [W:81]

    Quote Originally Posted by DA60 View Post
    Thank you for having an open mind...it's BLOODY refreshing around here.


    I'd rep you - but for some reason, I cannot.

    Plus I agree with you - it should be run by the private sector. That is a great point I will have to remember if I state it again.
    I hope someone who knows a lot about numbers and economics will chime in here and tell us their opinion on the cost effectiveness of such a program. I think it's a really great idea though. The shelters of course would provide shelter, food and clothing, the basic necessities for them.

    I still don't have a clue as to how this would solve the problem with the people who have multiple children while collecting services. I know that Minnie says the average is 1.9 or whatever, but I'm sure we have all either known or heard about a person who has more children than that by multiple fathers (or mothers - whatever the case may be), who don't pay child support, and the taxpayers are left paying the bills.

    I just think it is so unreasonable to give somebody taxpayer monies but allow them to keep having children that they cannot support. I just cannot be "okay" with that.

  10. #430
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: A license to have children [W:81]

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    I hope someone who knows a lot about numbers and economics will chime in here and tell us their opinion on the cost effectiveness of such a program. I think it's a really great idea though. The shelters of course would provide shelter, food and clothing, the basic necessities for them.

    I still don't have a clue as to how this would solve the problem with the people who have multiple children while collecting services. I know that Minnie says the average is 1.9 or whatever, but I'm sure we have all either known or heard about a person who has more children than that by multiple fathers (or mothers - whatever the case may be), who don't pay child support, and the taxpayers are left paying the bills.

    I just think it is so unreasonable to give somebody taxpayer monies but allow them to keep having children that they cannot support. I just cannot be "okay" with that.
    Well, I am no expert on this.

    But I agree that sending checks to healthy people on welfare is not the answer.

    I actually knew a woman that continued to have children just to keep her government checks coming.

    I realize she was an extreme case (at least, I hope she was).

    But paying people to basically do nothing just encourages them to continue to do nothing.

    I figure a shelter will keep them alive and healthy - but would not be a situation that they would want to maintain.


    BTW - obviously I will have to remember to make it more clear that my proposal is to replace federal welfare - not add to it.

Page 43 of 80 FirstFirst ... 33414243444553 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •