Paying for children

Wan · Sep 20, 2018

soylentgreen said:
So in other words not only are you suggesting a position of elitism where only the wealthy will be allowed to breed. But now you also want to add on that being poor should be considered a crime.

You are misrepresenting what I say. I never said only the rich can breed. I also did not say being poor should be a crime. All I am saying is that if people have babies that they can't afford to raise, they need to pay the money back to the taxpayers, because nobody should have to pay for someone else' kids. Do you agree with the last sentence?

Why do you think the taxpayers should be stuck with the bill for someone's kid? I am not saying we absolutely MUST put these dead-beat parents in jail. I just think they are being unfair to the taxpayers. If you have a better solution, I am all ears.

You're not having ideas,

I most certainly AM having ideas. Just because you don't like them it doesn't mean they are not ideas.

you're displaying a contempt for the poor.

This couldn't be further from the truth. If you would search for my posts, you would find that I have a history of defending the average people, working people, and the poor.

Not only that but you are demonstrating that you are completely clueless about governance.

Its like I said to someone else above, there is no need to regard me as an opponent. There is also no need to be gratuitously antagonistic. I hope that we are all here to share ideas and to fix problems. Lets work together, not against each other.

Your government is there to represent every person of your country not just those you consider worthy of representing. There are poor who work and pay tax so they deserve that representation just as much as the rich who work and then find loopholes to avoid paying tax.

I agree with the last statement. I guess I should have made it more clear, my solution does not target the poor who work and pay taxes. It mainly targets people who rely on welfare/social assistance, make a career out of it, and just pop out kids that they know they can't afford and expect them to be paid for. Think welfare queens and welfare-abusers.

Lursa · Sep 20, 2018

Wan said:
You are misrepresenting what I say. I never said only the rich can breed. I also did not say being poor should be a crime. All I am saying is that if people have babies that they can't afford to raise, they need to pay the money back to the taxpayers, because nobody should have to pay for someone else' kids. Do you agree with the last sentence?

So then when a couple or single person with kids loses their jobs, or one is injured, the other loses their job, etc etc etc (yes, the reasons are endless) and have to apply for public assistance, they should have to pay it back someday? Is that what you are suggesting?

ttwtt78640 · Sep 20, 2018

Wan said:
Really? Where does this happen? Are you an American? I am from Canada. Also, what is FPL?

FPL is the Federal Poverty Level. FPL is based on the number of people in the household and total household income before any "safety net" assistance is added. That mean if the number of people in that household decreases and the household income remains the same then that household is less poor, thus not entitled to as much "safety net" assistance.

Removable Mind · Sep 20, 2018

Lursa said:
So then when a couple or single person with kids loses their jobs, or one is injured, the other loses their job, etc etc etc (yes, the reasons are endless) and have to apply for public assistance, they should have to pay it back someday? Is that what you are suggesting?

Idiocracy is viral. It’s everywhere on the planet.

HonestJoe · Sep 20, 2018

Wan said:
First you said I didn't know what I was talking about, and now you accuse me of stating a falsehood. I am not saying that I am always right. I just think that you seem to regard me as an opponent. You talk in a gratuitously antagonistic way. All I am doing is put forth ideas to fix problems that I perceive. I wish you would treat me more like a partner and work with me to solve problems.

I wasn't accusing, I was outright stating. The gender of a parent is already irrelevant to receipt of various child benefits. You can't come up with solutions to problems without an accurate and honest representation of what the problems actually are.

Wan said:
I am not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that we should refuse to give financial resources to a parent who cannot afford to raise his/her child?

I'm not saying it. You're saying the state shouldn't have to pay to support children of parents who can't afford to bring them up. Wouldn't the most straight forward solution to that problem as you present it be not to pa any benefits at all? Even if the benefits were paid but had to be paid back (essentially a loan), that would still be a state (thus tax payer) expense.

Wan said:
I have another idea. How about we put people who cannot pay back the money in jail? Accuse them of defrauding the taxpayers and the government, which in a way they sort of are. Another benefit of this is that the sexes are segregated in prisons, and this would mean that these people would not have even more kids.

So you're actually proposing some form of state funded and run loan for parents to replace any child benefits? That proposal would need padding out somewhat.

Wan · Sep 20, 2018

HonestJoe said:
I wasn't accusing, I was outright stating. The gender of a parent is already irrelevant to receipt of various child benefits. You can't come up with solutions to problems without an accurate and honest representation of what the problems actually are.

I am talking about the problems as I see them. You might think the "real" problems are such and such, and that's fine. But just because the problems I wanted to talk about do not coincide with what you are concerned about, it does not mean I am not representing them honestly.

Anyway, we are getting side-tracked. My main issue is that some welfare-abusers keep popping out kids they know they can't afford, and then expect the taxpayers to pick up the tab. To me this seems really unfair. Do you agree with this?

I'm not saying it. You're saying the state shouldn't have to pay to support children of parents who can't afford to bring them up.

No. I am saying the state should have to pay to support children, but these parents would have to pay the money back to the taxpayers. Nobody should have to pay for someone else' kids.

Wouldn't the most straight forward solution to that problem as you present it be not to pa any benefits at all?

No, because the children are innocent. They should not suffer just because their parents cant afford to care for them.

Even if the benefits were paid but had to be paid back (essentially a loan), that would still be a state (thus tax payer) expense.

How would it be an expense, if the parents eventually paid the money back? Yes, there would be some administrative costs involved, but I believe most of the funds would be recovered, if the program was run correctly.

So you're actually proposing some form of state funded and run loan for parents to replace any child benefits? That proposal would need padding out somewhat.

I guess you can call it a loan. To me it doesn't matter, as long as people take financial responsibility for any child/ren they produced, then it's fine. I am glad that you like my idea.

Bodi · Sep 20, 2018

Wan said:
Hi. I want to talk about mothers who cannot afford their child and turn to the government for help. To me, these women should be given money to raise the child. We do this because the child is innocent and should not live a deprived life just because his mother does not have money. That being said, I propose that the government compel these women to pay the money (that they took from the dole to raise said child) back to the government, once the child is 18. This is because I don't think it's fair for the taxpayers to pay for someone else' child. If a woman knows she is poor and that she would not be able to raise her child properly, then she should not have him/her. If she goes ahead and has the child anyway, then in 18 years she will have her wage garnished (if she works), or her welfare check deducted (if she's on the dole).

Also, if women can turn to the state for help when they lack the financial resources to raise a child, then the same should happen for men, too. This is only fair. I don't see why women can rely on the dole (not just for child-rearing, but for all purposes), but men can't.

Your thoughts?

They are given money... they force the man and the state to pay for her irresponsible choice to have and raise a child that she cannot properly afford or care for on her own. The system is a disgrace.

Bodi · Sep 20, 2018

jimbo said:
You are aware that women who cannot afford their children and turn to the government for help most likely do not pay taxes, are you not?

Think how much better society would be if the only children born were to parents that could not afford the child!

Wayne Jr · Sep 21, 2018

Wan said:
I am not talking about abortion at all. I am talking about paying for a child.

I understand that. I'm saying that under your policy, there wouldn't be a child to pay for. She'll abort it.

HonestJoe · Sep 21, 2018

Wan said:
I am talking about the problems as I see them.

But some of your perceptions as you presented them in the OP are definitively factually wrong. You can’t engage in a discussion on the basis of false assumptions so they need to be acknowledged and corrected. The other issue is that some of your statements were getting in the rhetorical, such as perceived the male/female conflict, and that is never a good basis.

Wan said:
My main issue is that some welfare-abusers keep popping out kids they know they can't afford, and then expect the taxpayers to pick up the tab. To me this seems really unfair. Do you agree with this?

I think it’s unfortunate but I don’t think “fairness” to the taxpayer is a core issue with it. I think the welfare of the children (and parents for that matter) plus the wider socio-economic impact on the community should be the priority. There are lots of ways in which individuals or groups benefit from taxpayer funds, directly or indirectly, many of which will be in some way a consequence of their own choices and actions. I don’t think you can apply a simple “unfairness” declaration and focus it on this singular area.

Wan said:
How would it be an expense, if the parents eventually paid the money back? Yes, there would be some administrative costs involved, but I believe most of the funds would be recovered, if the program was run correctly.

Yes, an unsecured interest free loan running to 10s or even 100s of thousands over a 18 year period is an significant expense. How much interest do you imagine a commercial lender would demand for that kind of deal?

I also think you’re being overconfident over repayment. We’re largely talking about people who have very little income and aren’t going to magically gain more income when their children reach 18, not to mention to complication of further children. You mentioned imprisoning those who don’t/can’t repay but that’s just going to create an even greater cost (prison isn’t cheap) and isn’t going to do any favours to the (now) young adults by locking up their parents.

Wan said:
I guess you can call it a loan. To me it doesn't matter, as long as people take financial responsibility for any child/ren they produced, then it's fine. I am glad that you like my idea.

I don’t like the idea. I don’t think putting additional financial pressure on people already under it makes sense and the risk of parents choosing not to take the support they need seriously risks harm to the development and wellbeing of their children and themselves, potentially leading to more state expense dealing with the consequences (additional healthcare, schooling, social support plus feeding a cycle of poverty and thus reliance of state support).

I think the key problem with your viewpoint is individualism. You’re only seeing parents having and raising children as something for them when it’s also something for society. We all need the next generations, healthy, educated and socially developed to help support us as we all get older. Things like child benefit can be seen as an investment rather than an empty expense. There are certainly issue around some people having more children than they can realistically support, just as there are problem with people who do have the resources to properly support their children but fail to do so. I don’t think we need to completely turn the system around to address those sub-sets of recipients though.

soylentgreen · Sep 21, 2018

Wan said:
You are misrepresenting what I say. I never said only the rich can breed. I also did not say being poor should be a crime. All I am saying is that if people have babies that they can't afford to raise, they need to pay the money back to the taxpayers, because nobody should have to pay for someone else' kids. Do you agree with the last sentence?

Of course i do not. And you really need to think through the consequences of your statements. If the poor are told not to breed unless they can afford it, which they cannot, then it is left to the rich to breed. As well if your going to send people to jail for being unable to pay then you are making poverty a crime. It is simply dishonest or a lack of thinking that you pretend your last sentence has no consequences.

Why do you think the taxpayers should be stuck with the bill for someone's kid? I am not saying we absolutely MUST put these dead-beat parents in jail. I just think they are being unfair to the taxpayers. If you have a better solution, I am all ears.

Your government is there to represent every person, not just the ones you deem worthy. Your taxes are there to support the whole of society not just your elitist view of it.

I most certainly AM having ideas. Just because you don't like them it doesn't mean they are not ideas.

No, ideas are things that are helpful. Yours is an attempt to discriminate and persecute. They are not ideas they are worthless, thoughtless rants.

This couldn't be further from the truth. If you would search for my posts, you would find that I have a history of defending the average people, working people, and the poor.

And now you have a history of pissing on the poor from a great height, congratulations.

Its like I said to someone else above, there is no need to regard me as an opponent. There is also no need to be gratuitously antagonistic. I hope that we are all here to share ideas and to fix problems. Lets work together, not against each other.

But it is only people who rant like you that are the problem. Your not looking for a solution. Your filling the air with nonsense and at best wasting peoples time. At worst encouraging abuse of the poor.

I agree with the last statement. I guess I should have made it more clear, my solution does not target the poor who work and pay taxes. It mainly targets people who rely on welfare/social assistance, make a career out of it, and just pop out kids that they know they can't afford and expect them to be paid for. Think welfare queens and welfare-abusers.

Then change your useless system that allows for that to happen. Your now blaming the poor for being at fault because of the incompetence of your government to work a welfare system. Or is it that you are just looking for the easy answer, persecute the poor who cannot fight back rather than take the harder road and make your government responsible for the problem they are creating with an incompetently run system.

Wan · Sep 21, 2018

soylentgreen said:
Of course i do not.

You do not agree with me when I say that people should not have to pay for other people's kids? So you think people should pay for other people's kids? If we go by this "logic", then you should pay for the Ferrari that I so much want but can't afford.

And you really need to think through the consequences of your statements.

And what are these consequences?

If the poor are told not to breed unless they can afford it, which they cannot,

Quote me as saying that the poor cannot breed.

then it is left to the rich to breed.

You realize there is also the middle class, right? It's not such that there are only "the rich" (your favourite enemy and source of terror) and the poor.

As well if your going to send people to jail for being unable to pay then you are making poverty a crime.

Sending people to jail is one possible solution. If you don't like it, you can say it in a reasonably un-confrontational manner, and I will give it fair thought, and see if I can come up with better solutions that will satisfy you.

Also, I am NOT making poverty a crime. If I were, I would be like, "let's round poor people up and put them in jail" but this is not what I said at all.

It is simply dishonest or a lack of thinking that you pretend your last sentence has no consequences.

Where have I said there will be no consequences? I never said my solution is absolutely perfect or that there would be no problems at all.

Your government is there to represent every person, not just the ones you deem worthy.

Prove that I deem the rich as the only ones who are worthy of representation. Also prove that compelling people to pay money back to the taxpayers that they really shouldn't have taken is "not representing them".

Your taxes are there to support the whole of society not just your elitist view of it.

Calling my view "elitist" and all that. You are being needlessly confrontational. You could have asked me, in a calm, reasoned, reasonably polite way why I say the things I do instead of slapping labels on me and accusing me of this and that.

No, ideas are things that are helpful. Yours is an attempt to discriminate and persecute. They are not ideas they are worthless, thoughtless rants.

Prove that my ideas are not helpful and are mere rants. If you can't, then at least have the integrity to admit that you were just spewing your opinion.

And now you have a history of pissing on the poor from a great height, congratulations.

I laugh at your use of the word "piss". So emotionally charged. I really think you are losing your cool. Trying your level best to disparage me and all that.

But it is only people who rant like you that are the problem.

1. Prove that I am "ranting".
2. Prove that people like me are the problem.

Your not looking for a solution.

I am. You just don't like my solution.

Your filling the air with nonsense and at best wasting peoples time.

Funny you should say I am "wasting" people's time. If anything, I think *YOU* are the one who's wasting people's time. All you are doing is slapping labels on me, accusing me of this and that, all while not putting forth any alternative solution at all.

If you truly think my ideas (or excuse me, my "rants") are truly that terrible, then surely you have better ones. Let's hear them.

At worst encouraging abuse of the poor.

Not that I care about what you think of me (I don't), but I can truly say that I really, really, REALLY do not want to abuse the poor. Why would I even want to do that? Abusing the poor would not give me any benefit at all.

Then change your useless system that allows for that to happen.

Is it really that hard to NOT put the word "useless" in there?

Your now blaming the poor for being at fault because of the incompetence of your government to work a welfare system.

I don't think the problem I described is specific to my country. I think all Western countries experience it (abuse of the welfare system) to some degree.

Or is it that you are just looking for the easy answer, persecute the poor who cannot fight back rather than take the harder road and make your government responsible for the problem they are creating with an incompetently run system.

I DO want our governments to be responsible and to solve problems. But this is hard to achieve when you are being so gratuitously antagonistic. Usually solutions are only found when people don't accuse each other of "pissing" on the poor, not to mention a whole slew of choice descriptions you have been heaping on me in this thread.

soylentgreen · Sep 21, 2018

Wan said:
You do not agree with me when I say that people should not have to pay for other people's kids? So you think people should pay for other people's kids? If we go by this "logic", then you should pay for the Ferrari that I so much want but can't afford.
.

Equating a child with a ferrari. How pathetic that you think your vanity is equal to a child.

And what are these consequences?

Your deliberately wasting time with iame questions the practice of someone loosing a debate.

Quote me as saying that the poor cannot breed.

Reread my post and get a dictionary to look up the word consequence. Must i do all your thinking for you?

You realize there is also the middle class, right? It's not such that there are only "the rich" (your favourite enemy and source of terror) and the poor.

The middle class get government subsides schools through taxes. Stop being such a hypocrite.

Sending people to jail is one possible solution. If you don't like it, you can say it in a reasonably un-confrontational manner, and I will give it fair thought, and see if I can come up with better solutions that will satisfy you.

Calling your rants out for the stupidity they are is your problem if you find that insulting, not mine.

Also, I am NOT making poverty a crime. If I were, I would be like, "let's round poor people up and put them in jail" but this is not what I said at all.

Again you need to face the consequences of saying the poor need to be jailed if they fail to pay back a debt that you have thought up.

Where have I said there will be no consequences? I never said my solution is absolutely perfect or that there would be no problems at all.

Oh please! Could you be any more dishonest. I have told you what the consequences are and you are still arguing you never said any such thing.

Prove that I deem the rich as the only ones who are worthy of representation. Also prove that compelling people to pay money back to the taxpayers that they really shouldn't have taken is "not representing them".

Only you think that they do not deserve to be represented by the government. Only you think government is for the elite only.

Calling my view "elitist" and all that. You are being needlessly confrontational. You could have asked me, in a calm, reasoned, reasonably polite way why I say the things I do instead of slapping labels on me and accusing me of this and that.

Suck it up. If you talk **** then expect someone to tell you it is ****.

Prove that my ideas are not helpful and are mere rants. If you can't, then at least have the integrity to admit that you were just spewing your opinion.

Only the rich can breed and if the poor cannot pay then throw them in jail because being poor they cannot afford your excessive demands of pay back.
What an absolutely ****ing worthless rant you give.

I laugh at your use of the word "piss". So emotionally charged. I really think you are losing your cool. Trying your level best to disparage me and all that.

No i am just being exact in my analogy. Piss poor argument you give.

1. Prove that I am "ranting".
2. Prove that people like me are the problem.

I am. You just don't like my solution.

I already have. Apperantly your defense is to ignore and just ask for proof, pathetic.

Funny you should say I am "wasting" people's time. If anything, I think *YOU* are the one who's wasting people's time. All you are doing is slapping labels on me, accusing me of this and that, all while not putting forth any alternative solution at all.

If you truly think my ideas (or excuse me, my "rants") are truly that terrible, then surely you have better ones. Let's hear them.

Fix your welfare system instead of blaming the poor would be a good start for you.

soylentgreen · Sep 21, 2018

Not that I care about what you think of me (I don't), but I can truly say that I really, really, REALLY do not want to abuse the poor. Why would I even want to do that? Abusing the poor would not give me any benefit at all.

But for your information i know what you are. A dishonest debater deliberately stretching out a post in the hope that i will tire of having to answer so many inane points that you deliberately make that i will go away.

Is it really that hard to NOT put the word "useless" in there?

I don't think the problem I described is specific to my country. I think all Western countries experience it (abuse of the welfare system) to some degree

.

Honestly! I really doubt you could find the rest of the world on a map let alone have anything worthwhile to say about it. If you have not figured out that you have described a useless welfare system then your understanding of welfare would not give you the ability to see what other countries do.

I DO want our governments to be responsible and to solve problems. But this is hard to achieve when you are being so gratuitously antagonistic. Usually solutions are only found when people don't accuse each other of "pissing" on the poor, not to mention a whole slew of choice descriptions you have been heaping on me in this thread

Then stop this stupid picking on easy targets who cannot fight back like the poor.

Solutions are found by definitely telling people who come up with **** rants to go away and stop wasting the time of those who are seeking a better solution.

Wan · Sep 21, 2018

soylentgreen said:
Equating a child with a ferrari. How pathetic that you think your vanity is equal to a child.

But I did not literally say a child is the same as a Ferrari. I was merely trying to show you (though I well knew how futile it would be) that people should not have to pay for other people, whether it's kids or vanity items like Ferrari's.

Can you tell me why you think I, or anybody for that matter, should pay for someone else' child?

Your deliberately wasting time with iame questions the practice of someone loosing a debate.

Well, unlike you, I do not see it as "winning" or "losing" when I participate in online communities. But I can see that "winning" online debates (LOL!) is important to you.

Reread my post and get a dictionary to look up the word consequence. Must i do all your thinking for you?

But I literally did NOT say, "the poor cannot breed". And trust me, the only person who needs his thinking done for him, is you.

The middle class get government subsides schools through taxes. Stop being such a hypocrite.

I never said the middle class did not get government subsidies. I was pointing out that this, "the poor v the rich" dichotomy in your thinking was incorrect. You did not know that there was a middle class, and I was doing you a favour by pointing out your ignorance to you.

Calling your rants out for the stupidity they are is your problem if you find that insulting, not mine.

Where have I said I found your drivel "insulting"? Quote me. Also I will have you know that you would have to try a lot harder to really insult me. Right now you are merely entertaining.

Besides, you did not address my point, which is that if you truly do not like the solution I offer, you can bring it up and I will try to address it. This sounds very reasonable and I don't know why you reacted in such an explosive manner.

Again you need to face the consequences of saying the poor need to be jailed if they fail to pay back a debt that you have thought up.

In other words, you cannot prove that I want to make poverty a crime. You certainly like to cry about it, though.

Oh please! Could you be any more dishonest. I have told you what the consequences are and you are still arguing you never said any such thing.

There was no "dishonesty" on my part, and more like reading comprehension issues on your part. I never said you did not bring up potential consequences. You did, and I acknowledge that. However, you said that I claimed there would be no consequences, and this is factually incorrect. As a matter of fact, I never said my solution would be consequence-free. Its true that I did not mention consequences in my previous posts, and it's because I did not foresee them. But not once have I proclaimed, "my solution is perfect".

Only you think that they do not deserve to be represented by the government. Only you think government is for the elite only.

Do you think if you keep spewing falsehood, it will start being true? Asking people to pay money back to the taxpayers that they shouldn't have taken is not equivalent to saying they do not deserve to be represented by the government. I already explained it. Why do you repeatedly fail to comprehend that?

Wan · Sep 21, 2018

Continued---

Suck it up. If you talk **** then expect someone to tell you it is ****.

Well, truth be told, I think what *YOU* said is cow-dung, but I have the civility to not say it, because 1. it would not have led to a productive debate if people just exchanged insults; and 2. I have more class than you do.

Only the rich can breed and if the poor cannot pay then throw them in jail because being poor they cannot afford your excessive demands of pay back.

How are my demands "excessive"? If people take from the taxpayers money they should not have taken, then it's only fair that they give it back. I haven't decided whether to charge them interest on it, though.

What an absolutely ****ing worthless rant you give.

Melt harder. It's fun to watch.

No i am just being exact in my analogy. Piss poor argument you give.

Funny how you cannot even properly counter a supposedly "piss poor" argument. All you are doing here is spew insults at me. Why is this whole debate so emotionally charged for you, anyway? Are you a poor person yourself? There is nothing wrong with that. I am poor myself.

I already have.

Sorry, but no. You have not proven anything. You think throwing out insults and personal attacks amounts to proving, though.

Apperantly your defense is to ignore and just ask for proof, pathetic.

I have not ignored anything. You did not prove anything. You just think you have because you think insulting people is debating. Lol. You should have saved that "pathetic" for yourself.

Fix your welfare system instead of blaming the poor would be a good start for you.

Lol wut? *MY* welfare system? What, do you think I am Justin Trudeau?

But for your information i know what you are. A dishonest debater deliberately stretching out a post in the hope that i will tire of having to answer so many inane points that you deliberately make that i will go away.

LOL! This is literally the funniest bit. You just showed the whole board how *YOU* conduct yourself in an online community. *YOU* deliberately stretch out a post in the hope your opponent will run away, and you are projecting your pathetic way onto me. Thanks for showing us how your mind works. Lol, I don't even need to try to insult you, you are doing that to yourself already.

Honestly! I really doubt you could find the rest of the world on a map let alone have anything worthwhile to say about it.

I find your attempts at insulting me both entertaining and cute. Have you got more in the works?

If you have not figured out that you have described a useless welfare system then your understanding of welfare would not give you the ability to see what other countries do.

My understanding of welfare aside, it's like I said, I NEVER claimed my solution was perfect. If you don't like it, tell me why, and I will address it. But you need to do it in a reasonably non-confrontational way. This is how civilized people talk.

Then stop this stupid picking on easy targets who cannot fight back like the poor.

I am not "picking" on the poor. What can I say to convince you? I really don't hate the poor.

Solutions are found by definitely telling people who come up with **** rants to go away and stop wasting the time of those who are seeking a better solution.

Lol. Funny you say "rant". I think if anything, *YOU* are the one who's been ranting in this thread the whole time. You keep throwing insult after insult at me. I really think I pushed your button.

soylentgreen · Sep 22, 2018

Wan said:
But I did not literally say a child is the same as a Ferrari. I was merely trying to show you (though I well knew how futile it would be) that people should not have to pay for other people, whether it's kids or vanity items like Ferrari's.

So to you kids means nothing more than a vanity item like a ferrari. You are in fact quite literally saying a child is the same as a vanity item.

Can you tell me why you think I, or anybody for that matter, should pay for someone else' child?

Because you live in a society, not on an island by yourself.

Well, unlike you, I do not see it as "winning" or "losing" when I participate in online communities. But I can see that "winning" online debates (LOL!) is important to you.

No, you would see it as a poor attempt to waste time in the hope i will go away .

But I literally did NOT say, "the poor cannot breed". And trust me, the only person who needs his thinking done for him, is you.

Again you need to think through the consequences of what you do say. If the poor are to be punished for breeding unless they can afford a child by their own income, which they cannot , hence the title poor. Then you are in fact literally saying they cannot breed. Your excuse of trying to say that you have not said the words once again demonstrates either dishonesty or incompetence.

I never said the middle class did not get government subsidies. I was pointing out that this, "the poor v the rich" dichotomy in your thinking was incorrect. You did not know that there was a middle class, and I was doing you a favour by pointing out your ignorance to you.

Then you are being a hypocrite. One class is allowed to use taxes to raise their children but another not. Again you demonstrate your elitist thinking.

Where have I said I found your drivel "insulting"? Quote me. Also I will have you know that you would have to try a lot harder to really insult me. Right now you are merely entertaining.

Besides, you did not address my point, which is that if you truly do not like the solution I offer, you can bring it up and I will try to address it. This sounds very reasonable and I don't know why you reacted in such an explosive manner.

I have been addressing the point all along. Yours is elitist thinking. The cowardly attempt to blame and persecute the poor and nothing more. Your rants are a waste of time to anyone really looking for solutions.

In other words, you cannot prove that I want to make poverty a crime. You certainly like to cry about it, though.

Again i need repeat myself because you simply ignore what is said. you want to jail the poor for not being able to afford a cost they cannot afford.

There was no "dishonesty" on my part, and more like reading comprehension issues on your part. I never said you did not bring up potential consequences. You did, and I acknowledge that. However, you said that I claimed there would be no consequences, and this is factually incorrect. As a matter of fact, I never said my solution would be consequence-free. Its true that I did not mention consequences in my previous posts, and it's because I did not foresee them. But not once have I proclaimed, "my solution is perfect".

You have not acknowledged that by the very fact of your last statement. you still pretend that your claim of sending the poor to prison does not mean you are making poverty a crime.
It is not that your solution is not perfect. Your solution is ridiculous. the callous thinking of an elitist. The cowardly thinking of someone who chooses to victimise those who cannot fight back.

Do you think if you keep spewing falsehood, it will start being true? Asking people to pay money back to the taxpayers that they shouldn't have taken is not equivalent to saying they do not deserve to be represented by the government. I already explained it. Why do you repeatedly fail to comprehend that?

Which shows how stupid your rants are. the poor do not have the money to pay back. That is why they are called the poor. If you want them in a position where they can pay taxes then have your government actually spend taxes on improving their housing , education and job availability so that they can work and pay taxes.

You really need to read some books on economics to understand why we have poor people in the first place. And then read some books on social philosophy to understand how we should be dealing with this kind of social stratification. Your ignorant, hateful and cowardly ranting against an easy target because you lack the wit to tackle the real problem. Which is people like you and governments who can get away with doing nothing because of people like you.

Wan · Sep 22, 2018

Having the last word is important to Soylentgreen.

Anarchon · Sep 22, 2018

Wan said:
To me, these women should be given money to raise the child.

Feel free to donate and give money to them personally. But, stealing money from others at the point of a gun is immoral.

SDET · Sep 22, 2018

Wan said:
Hi. I want to talk about mothers who cannot afford their child and turn to the government for help. To me, these women should be given money to raise the child. We do this because the child is innocent and should not live a deprived life just because his mother does not have money. That being said, I propose that the government compel these women to pay the money (that they took from the dole to raise said child) back to the government, once the child is 18. This is because I don't think it's fair for the taxpayers to pay for someone else' child. If a woman knows she is poor and that she would not be able to raise her child properly, then she should not have him/her. If she goes ahead and has the child anyway, then in 18 years she will have her wage garnished (if she works), or her welfare check deducted (if she's on the dole).

Also, if women can turn to the state for help when they lack the financial resources to raise a child, then the same should happen for men, too. This is only fair. I don't see why women can rely on the dole (not just for child-rearing, but for all purposes), but men can't.

Your thoughts?

In Mexico and other Latin American countries if an attractive single young woman gets pregnant, she is advised to keep that big belly well oiled to avoid stretch marks, The prostitute's bed awaits her. Very few men would even consider having a committed relationship with her. In the US, UK and Canada, there's always a desperate guy willing to play "Captain Save A Ho" just to be in her "friend zone". It's even worse than your premise: If a court orders child support, the payments are often increased to subsidize public benefit repayment. In other words, it's often the man that gets stuck with repaying public benefits!

Lursa · Sep 22, 2018

SDET said:
In Mexico and other Latin American countries if an attractive single young woman gets pregnant, she is advised to keep that big belly well oiled to avoid stretch marks, The prostitute's bed awaits her. Very few men would even consider having a committed relationship with her.

How did she get pregnant? Was it it thru Holy Transmission?

And why does her enjoying casual sex make her undesirable when obviously, it was consensual with a man? Is he now undesirable after having sired a bastard?

SDET · Sep 22, 2018

Lursa said:
How did she get pregnant? Was it it thru Holy Transmission?

And why does her enjoying casual sex make her undesirable when obviously, it was consensual with a man? Is he now undesirable after having sired a bastard?

Don't confuse my personal opinion with larger observations of reality. Most men Mexico, Brazil, Colombia and Peru simply have no interest in a single mother. Here in the USA it's a risk because the man is on the hook for paying child support for another man's child if the marriage to the single mother fails. Regarding the man, I would also say it would count against the man in some areas, but not in as extreme a manner than a woman. In Brazil in particular, women are not judged for casual sex if they don't get pregnant. There's much less taboo in Brazil about a young female employee sleeping with her boss to make extra points.

Lursa · Sep 22, 2018

SDET said:
Don't confuse my personal opinion with larger observations of reality. Most men Mexico, Brazil, Colombia and Peru simply have no interest in a single mother. Here in the USA it's a risk because the man is on the hook for paying child support for another man's child if the marriage to the single mother fails. Regarding the man, I would also say it would count against the man in some areas, but not in as extreme a manner than a woman. In Brazil in particular, women are not judged for casual sex if they don't get pregnant. There's much less taboo in Brazil about a young female employee sleeping with her boss to make extra points.

LOL There's little question about the reality.

I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy.

Paying for children

Wan

Lursa

Tenacious

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong

Removable Mind

Irremovable Intelligence

HonestJoe

Wan

Bodi

Just waiting for my set...

Bodi

Just waiting for my set...

Wayne Jr

bis vincit qui se vincit

HonestJoe

soylentgreen

Wan

soylentgreen

soylentgreen

Wan

Wan

soylentgreen

Wan

Anarchon

Resident Voluntaryist

SDET

Lursa

Tenacious

SDET

Lursa

Tenacious