A license to have children [W:81]

a351 said:

Let's put this in simpler terms. I receive a check from my employer. A company. An entity. I am no more beholden to said employer than a welfare recipient is to the federal branch, nor is either of us sacrificing our individual freedom. Just drop that whole analogy and move on.

Click to expand...

Yes, let's put in simpler terms. You are DOING something to earn the money and contributing to the success of a business when you have a job and actually work for your money. You then contribute that money into the economy and pay taxes.

Your employer also has a level of dependence upon you to do your job and show up every day. The government nor taxpayer has no dependence on a person receiving public assistance. What is that person contributing?

ChrisL said:

I don't want to see welfare end. I want to see it used as it was meant to be used, as a way to get temporary help when someone falls upon bad times and a way to even better oneself so that they can escape the cycle of poverty. I am totally sympathetic to someone who needs a helping hand because they fell on hard times or perhaps even made a mistake or an error in judgment. I don't believe in enabling irresponsible behavior though.

Click to expand...

The problem with your idea here is that welfare actually helps maintain the condition. The assumption you are running with is that with access to services they will have a better chance forward, but what you forgetting is the transaction and what occurs on that transaction and where the service is based. Welfare affects wages and increases profits and as such it makes the condition of poor harder, not better. All it does in the end is help out a few people on the poor end while hurting the rest of them, the rich on the other end and hurt just about about everyone else.

ChrisL said:

Yes, let's put in simpler terms. You are DOING something to earn the money and contributing to the success of a business when you have a job and actually work for your money. You then contribute that money into the economy and pay taxes.

Click to expand...

Do me a solid. Read through the series of posts that led to this one and get up to speed on just what's being argued here. Or just read the last half of the post you quoted. In neither case is said individual sacrificing freedom for security.

Henrin said:

The problem with your idea here is that welfare actually helps maintain the condition. The assumption you are running with is that with access to services they will have a better chance forward, but what you forgetting is the transaction and what occurs on that transaction and where the service is based. Welfare affects wages and increases profits and as such it makes the condition of poor harder, not better. All it does in the end is help out a few people on the poor end while hurting the rest of them, the rich on the other end and hurt just about about everyone else.

Click to expand...

But if there were some stipulations, it might be more helpful than what it is now. Such as mandatory job training and birth control.

a351 said:

Let's put this in simpler terms. I receive a check from my employer. A company. An entity. I am no more beholden to said employer than a welfare recipient is to the federal branch, nor is either of us sacrificing our individual freedom. Just drop that whole analogy and move on.

Click to expand...

How has that worked out in practice? I'm guessing extremely well, yes? You can make all the fairytales you want up, but the fact is a welfare receipt is not like an employee.

a351 said:

Do me a solid. Read through the series of posts that led to this one and get up to speed on just what's being argued here. Or just read the last half of the post you quoted. In neither case is said individual sacrificing freedom for security.

Click to expand...

What freedom is being sacrificed? You are trying to make it sound as if collecting welfare is somehow a right. It isn't. There is no right to collect public assistance. You ALREADY give up some privacy rights when you agree to take public assistance. Anyone is FREE to have children and pay for them themselves. Birth control is NOT unreasonable, nor is it horrible or nightmarish or any kind of an assault. There is no right to have more children than you can afford while collecting public assistance.

ChrisL said:

What freedom is being sacrificed?

Anyone is FREE to have children and pay for them themselves.

There is no right to have more children than you can afford while collecting public assistance.

Click to expand...

None, which is the gist of the argument. You've muddied one issue with another. Employment ≠ Loss of Freedom. Welfare Check ≠ Loss of Freedom. Got it?

Should've stopped there. Individuals can currently procreate as they see fit, regardless of your feelings and wishes.

Sure there is! If you disagree, just dig me up legal limitations pertaining children per family, and subsequently by income.

Henrin said:

How has that worked out in practice? I'm guessing extremely well, yes? You can make all the fairytales you want up, but the fact is a welfare receipt is not like an employee.

Click to expand...

What on earth are you braying about? If my post was in Mandarin you wouldn't be farther off the mark.

a351 said:

What on earth are you braying about? If my post was in Mandarin you wouldn't be farther off the mark.

Click to expand...

No, I was right on the mark. You want to pretend that a being a wage earner is somehow comparable to getting services at someone else's dime. To do this you have to ignore why the wages are given to worker, what has happened with welfare in the past and in the present and just how paying for something for others in such a way as welfare makes them more like children, not like workers. Tell me, what do think happens when someone is paying for your survival? Who do you think has the control in such a situation? I will give you a hint, its not the person getting something. If you are not pretending here than you just don't understand ownership, control structures and just how wages behave.

Henrin said:

No, I was right on the mark. You want to pretend that a being a wage earner is somehow comparable to getting services at someone else's dime. To do this you have to ignore why the wages are given to worker, what has happened with welfare in the past and in the present and just how paying for something for others in such a way as welfare makes them more like children, not like workers. Tell me, what do think happens when someone is paying for your survival? Who do you think has the control in such a situation? I will give you a hint, its not the person getting something. If you are not pretending here than you just don't understand ownership, control structures and just how wages behave.

Click to expand...

Sheesh, you're the 4th person in the last handful of pages to completely muck up a simple analogy. Employment ≠ Loss of Freedom. Welfare Check ≠ Loss of Freedom. Gonna have to start typing in larger font.

a351 said:

Sheesh, you're the 4th person in the last handful of pages to completely muck up a simple analogy. Employment ≠ Loss of Freedom. Welfare Check ≠ Loss of Freedom. Gonna have to start typing in larger font.

Click to expand...

No, employment doesn't equal less freedom. You work for your own benefit while providing a service to the employer. As a result you get paid and can partake in more activities. If anything this is more freedom, not less.

I'm assuming however you are just saying that having to work to gain these things is less freedom, but considering you need to somehow get other people to grant you permission to have access to what they are providing that point has no where to go.

Henrin said:

No, employment doesn't equal less freedom. You work for your own benefit while providing a service to the employer. As a result you get paid and can partake in more activities. If anything this is more freedom, not less.

I'm assuming however you are just saying that having to work to gain these things is less freedom, but considering you need to somehow get other people to grant you permission to have access to what they are providing that point has no where to go.

Click to expand...

Those little thingies (≠) mean "does not equal."

a351 said:

Those little thingies mean "does not equal."

Click to expand...

Ok, so what is your point? Workers aren't losing freedom and the connection with the employer no longer exists. That is not the case with welfare. In welfare the connection is not lost and is instead constantly maintained with the taxpayer/government

ChrisL said:

We already have that, and what happens is the person has another child, and therefore the "time allotted" starts all over again once the new child is conceived. The pregnancy, any complications that occur during the pregnancy to either the mother or fetus, the birthing and delivery and any complications, and then the new baby - all paid for with taxpayer dollars.
They (or WE) already do that whenever someone is collecting public assistance. Their medical care is already paid for. If there are any pregnancy or child-birth/bearing complications, we are responsible for that too. :shrug:

Click to expand...

:shrug:

Of course not. The original idea for public assistance was temporary help during financial hardship. It was NEVER meant for people to depend upon for support like some do. It was never meant to allow people to have MORE children that they cannot afford. That was never the concept. Educational opportunities abound when you are collecting, and a lot for free. The idea is to better yourself so that you can be independent, not to make your situation even WORSE than when you began.

Click to expand...

The idea is still that government assistance is temporary. That concept hasnt changed at all. It isnt just a walk in the park you won the damn lottery, in fact its quite the opposite. That assistance cannot sustain a family or really a individual. Medical under medicaid is a joke, good luck finding a doctor that actually takes medicaid these days. ANd if you do your choices are very limited and they are more likely to send you home rather than actually try to figure out what actually wrong with you.

We don't pay for their kids. They do. They work for their money and use that money to pay for their own children. Working for the government is completely different than receiving public assistance. Stop trying to be coy. It isn't working. :lol:

Click to expand...

Yes we actually do pay for the kids that people have when in the military. Yes the parents worked but even the parents are on our dime. We dont get to tell the parents in the military that they must get long term birth control because that is not the Governments job at all. The same goes for parents that are getting government assistance it doesnt matter whether they are working or not the government cannot dictate such a personal decision period. ANd to do so is exactly what a Authoritarian Government would do. ANd you justify Authoritarian anti liberty and freedom behavior by our government because in this situation you think it is a good thing to do. The fact is that yyou want open a door that once is open will be very hard to shut. If it is Constitutional for the Government to dictate to one section of the population personal matters then you set the legal precedence for the government to dictate to us all.

My point and my argument has nothing to do with protecting welfare or lazy people it has everything to do with the Constitution and out liberties and freedoms. I wasnt being coy by no means I asked specific questions that you chose to deflect. WHich tells me a lot.

FreedomFromAll said:

The idea is still that government assistance is temporary. That concept hasnt changed at all. It isnt just a walk in the park you won the damn lottery, in fact its quite the opposite. That assistance cannot sustain a family or really a individual. Medical under medicaid is a joke, good luck finding a doctor that actually takes medicaid these days. ANd if you do your choices are very limited and they are more likely to send you home rather than actually try to figure out what actually wrong with you.

Click to expand...

I collected assistance when I was 16 and 17 years old. I know ALL about it. I've known PLENTY of people who are perfectly happy to sit home on their asses, have children and collect welfare. If you don't think there are people who do this, then you are in denial. Some people are satisfied with what they earn on AFDC or welfare.

About Medicaid, you are WRONG. Medicaid was the best insurance plan I've ever had. It covers 100% of everything. No copays or anything. I never had problems getting a doctor's appointment and I never felt as if my medical care was skimped on. I am speaking from firsthand knowledge here. You?

Yes we actually do pay for the kids that people have when in the military. Yes the parents worked but even the parents are on our dime. We dont get to tell the parents in the military that they must get long term birth control because that is not the Governments job at all. The same goes for parents that are getting government assistance it doesnt matter whether they are working or not the government cannot dictate such a personal decision period. ANd to do so is exactly what a Authoritarian Government would do. ANd you justify Authoritarian anti liberty and freedom behavior by our government because in this situation you think it is a good thing to do. The fact is that yyou want open a door that once is open will be very hard to shut. If it is Constitutional for the Government to dictate to one section of the population personal matters then you set the legal precedence for the government to dictate to us all.

Click to expand...

This is a completely ridiculous analogy, and you know it. I refuse to compare military members who risk their lives for their country and work HARD for their money to welfare recipients. A totally BOGUS comparison.

It's friggin birth control so that welfare recipients can't continue to have children and take advantage of the program, and it IS a good idea. You fear is unfounded.

My point and my argument has nothing to do with protecting welfare or lazy people it has everything to do with the Constitution and out liberties and freedoms. I wasnt being coy by no means I asked specific questions that you chose to deflect. WHich tells me a lot.

Click to expand...

This does NOT go against anything in the Constitution, because the people I am referring to are collecting taxpayer money. There SHOULD be stipulations, and if someone doesn't like or agree with those stipulations, then they are more than FREE to not collect taxpayer money. We didn't ALWAYS have welfare you know. Welfare is something that is done out of the goodness of our hearts and nothing more. People are NOT entitled to it, and there is NOTHING wrong with having some stipulations in order to collect it.

a351 said:

None, which is the gist of the argument. You've muddied one issue with another. Employment ≠ Loss of Freedom. Welfare Check ≠ Loss of Freedom. Got it?

Should've stopped there. Individuals can currently procreate as they see fit, regardless of your feelings and wishes.

Sure there is! If you disagree, just dig me up legal limitations pertaining children per family, and subsequently by income.

Click to expand...

Good Lord! You're just ignoring HUGE differences and that is just pure willful ignorance.

Yes, smarty pants, we're talking hypothetical situations here. DUH!!!

I think it's a great idea, and YOU have absolutely failed in proving otherwise. :mrgreen: I guess the only left for you to do is to make ridiculous comparisons which really don't mean anything.

a351 said:

Do me a solid. Read through the series of posts that led to this one and get up to speed on just what's being argued here. Or just read the last half of the post you quoted. In neither case is said individual sacrificing freedom for security.

Click to expand...

THE POINT IS that people should not collect services while making their own situations even MORE impossible. That is sheer stupidity and nothing more or less, on the part of the individual and on our parts for enabling that irresponsible and pathetic behavior.

ChrisL said:

I collected assistance when I was 16 and 17 years old. I know ALL about it. I've known PLENTY of people who are perfectly happy to sit home on their asses, have children and collect welfare. If you don't think there are people who do this, then you are in denial. Some people are satisfied with what they earn on AFDC or welfare.

About Medicaid, you are WRONG. Medicaid was the best insurance plan I've ever had. It covers 100% of everything. No copays or anything. I never had problems getting a doctor's appointment and I never felt as if my medical care was skimped on. I am speaking from firsthand knowledge here. You?





This is a completely ridiculous analogy, and you know it. I refuse to compare military members who risk their lives for their country and work HARD for their money to welfare recipients. A totally BOGUS comparison.

It's friggin birth control so that welfare recipients can't continue to have children and take advantage of the program, and it IS a good idea. You fear is unfounded.



This does NOT go against anything in the Constitution, because the people I am referring to are collecting taxpayer money. There SHOULD be stipulations, and if someone doesn't like or agree with those stipulations, then they are more than FREE to not collect taxpayer money. We didn't ALWAYS have welfare you know. Welfare is something that is done out of the goodness of our hearts and nothing more. People are NOT entitled to it, and there is NOTHING wrong with having some stipulations in order to collect it.

Click to expand...

^ Good post. And I agree with every word.

lol what makes me laugh are the people who bring the constitution into this debate. If we went by the constitution, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Federally funded welfare would not exist.

Alyssa said:

^ Good post. And I agree with every word.

lol what makes me laugh are the people who bring the constitution into this debate. If we went by the constitution, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Federally funded welfare would not exist.

Click to expand...

It blows my mind how some seem to think that people are "entitled" to receive welfare benefits. They are NOT and there should most certainly be stipulations in order to collect it.

ChrisL said:

It blows my mind how some seem to think that people are "entitled" to receive welfare benefits. They are NOT and there should most certainly be stipulations in order to collect it.

Click to expand...

yeah where's my damn check-- Why the hell should i work at all when i can just sit on my keister and collect a friggin check instead? I've worked a number of unpleasant jobs to keep my family over that limit when my husband's checks were smaller. My neighbor gets SSI. Not a thing wrong with this bitch other than chronic laziness and a sense of entitlement. She's healthy enough to play sports, keep up her garden, and cheat on her boyfriend who has a job. She also gets foodstamps and medicaid. Meanwhile, I'm up by 6 each morning. It's nothing more than subsidizing less than average.

FreedomFromAll said:

Yes on a simplistic level that sounds logical, but in reality it isnt that simple. First of all if the person has a religious reason for not taking birth control then what?

Click to expand...

ChrisL said:

Hmmm. That's actually a good point. I haven't thought of that angle yet. But I could still say that they are using public assistance; and WE are not obligated to support them on their terms. WE do it out of the kindness of our hearts and sympathy and because we want a healthy society. There is nothing wrong with stipulations in order to receive the benefits IMO.

Click to expand...

Do you really think you could just say to heck with religious freedoms "WE are not obligated to support them on their terms? "
Don't you think if our government tried to mandate BC for welfare recipients that the Catholic Church would be up in arms and would take the case all the way to the SC?

Alyssa said:

yeah where's my damn check-- Why the hell should i work at all when i can just sit on my keister and collect a friggin check instead? I've worked a number of unpleasant jobs to keep my family over that limit when my husband's checks were smaller. My neighbor gets SSI. Not a thing wrong with this bitch other than chronic laziness and a sense of entitlement. She's healthy enough to play sports, keep up her garden, and cheat on her boyfriend who has a job. She also gets foodstamps and medicaid. Meanwhile, I'm up by 6 each morning. It's nothing more than subsidizing less than average.

Click to expand...

I've seen it tons of times. I know a particular person who used to collect disability because of a car accident and a supposed "back injury," and she worked as a house cleaner under the table. She also had a HUGE problem with pill popping. I haven't seen her in years, so I don't know what she's up to now. Last I knew, she had 4 kids though.

minnie616 said:

Do you really think you could just say to heck with religious freedoms "WE are not obligated to support them on their terms? "
Don't you think if our government tried to mandate BC for welfare recipients that the Catholic Church would be up in arms and would take the case all the way to the SC?

Click to expand...

So now we're bringing religion into the mix, huh? Nice move Minnie. Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, it is still a CHOICE. Don't collect public assistance if it's against your religion.

ChrisL said:

So now we're bringing religion into the mix, huh? Nice move Minnie. Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, it is still a CHOICE. Don't collect public assistance if it's against your religion.

Click to expand...

You see it as a CHOICE but I am pretty sure the Catholic Church will see it as an infringement of religious rights.
I understand you think this a good plan to help keep more children from being born into poverety and that your intentions are good but but I am pointing out why mandating Long Term BC is a not a realistic solution.

minnie616 said:

You see it as a CHOICE but I am pretty sure the Catholic Church will see it as an infringement of religious rights.
I understand you think this a good plan to help keep more children from being born into poverety and that your intentions are good but but I am pointing out why mandating Long Term BC is a not a realistic solution.

Click to expand...

Oh, because the Catholics won't like it? They also don't like taxpayer funded abortions, but those happen too. :shrug: