• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A license to have children [W:81]

A license to have children?

  • Yes

    Votes: 22 20.6%
  • No

    Votes: 79 73.8%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 6 5.6%

  • Total voters
    107
Justifying all welfare by saying it's for the children is a bit like flooding a country ruled by an oppressive regime with international aid and saying "it's for your starving people." Who cares if most of it is being misused/squandered by the regime? At least our intentions are good...

The kids who need the most help/protection are those with the worst parents. We should not be rewarding or excusing the worst parents by giving them the most help.
 
Do you think part of the problem is that the gov gives enough money, per child to low income parent(s), that it's an incentive to actually breed for the extra money? Especially since they can make more that way, than being employed in some cases or at least live comfortable?

I think these people would breed in a garbage can full of fly larva. The welfare money is like pouring gasoline on a fire. That is why I suggest adding an incentive along with the welfare money for these people to quit breeding. How about a check for a few grand, plus continued welfare. Sounds fair to me.

Wouldn't it be easier to just cut back the money per child and reduce the incentive?

yeah but the children suffer in that instance. It's better to reduce the number of children being born into poverty, imo.

Or would they continue to breed and simply unload the newborns onto the system burdening us further? I'm honestly curious what solutions sound compassionately viable?

The obvious long term solution is a lower birth rate.
 
I think these people would breed in a garbage can full of fly larva. The welfare money is like pouring gasoline on a fire. That is why I suggest adding an incentive along with the welfare money for these people to quit breeding. How about a check for a few grand, plus continued welfare. Sounds fair to me.



yeah but the children suffer in that instance. It's better to reduce the number of children being born into poverty, imo.



The obvious long term solution is a lower birth rate.

The PC Media and gov won't accept the Draconian methods needed to slow down excess children born at poverty levels without drastic problems resulting from it. We're apparently are not quite at that point yet.
 
The PC Media and gov won't accept the Draconian methods needed to slow down excess children born at poverty levels without drastic problems resulting from it. We're apparently are not quite at that point yet.

I don't understand why some people see long-term mandatory birth control as "Draconian." It's the opposite to me. To me, bringing children into a situation like that is much more terrible.
 
I don't understand why some people see long-term mandatory birth control as "Draconian." It's the opposite to me. To me, bringing children into a situation like that is much more terrible.

Well, I agree that mandatory birth control is not a bad thing but it should never have even gotten this far or to what other people will call "Draconian". People don't practice common sense and we all pay for it, also if you limit only poor folk from breeding the Media will cry fowl. So it has to be across the board, maybe?
 
Well, I agree that mandatory birth control is not a bad thing but it should never have even gotten this far or to what other people will call "Draconian". People don't practice common sense and we all pay for it, also if you limit only poor folk from breeding the Media will cry fowl. So it has to be across the board, maybe?

No, only to people collecting money at taxpayer expense. IMO, the taxpayers shouldn't have to be beholden for additional children that a person has while already receiving public assistance. No WAY. I am fully behind mandatory BC. It is what is best for everyone involved.
 
No, only to people collecting money at taxpayer expense. IMO, the taxpayers shouldn't have to be beholden for additional children that a person has while already receiving public assistance. No WAY. I am fully behind mandatory BC. It is what is best for everyone involved.

I have no problem with that because the well off people percentage wise have much smaller families anyway. But I doubt forced birth control on the welfare crowd alone will fly. Who knows eventually but it won't come from the Administration I promise you.
 
I have no problem with that because the well off people percentage wise have much smaller families anyway. But I doubt forced birth control on the welfare crowd alone will fly. Who knows eventually but it won't come from the Administration I promise you.

Oh I know that. Just look at some of the responses on this thread, how outraged people are that anyone would have the audacity to suggest such a thing! Lol.
 
Justifying all welfare by saying it's for the children is a bit like flooding a country ruled by an oppressive regime with international aid and saying "it's for your starving people." Who cares if most of it is being misused/squandered by the regime? At least our intentions are good...

The kids who need the most help/protection are those with the worst parents. We should not be rewarding or excusing the worst parents by giving them the most help.

It's not really like that at all and by no stretch of imagination is "most" of the funds for social safety nets being "misused."

My big question about parenting licenses would be what you do with someone who had an unplanned child but fails to meet whatever arbitrary criteria you've set. Take away the child? Forced abortion?

Well, I agree that mandatory birth control is not a bad thing but it should never have even gotten this far or to what other people will call "Draconian". People don't practice common sense and we all pay for it, also if you limit only poor folk from breeding the Media will cry fowl. So it has to be across the board, maybe?

The media will cry fowl? (sic) How about every decent human being?
 
Oh I know that. Just look at some of the responses on this thread, how outraged people are that anyone would have the audacity to suggest such a thing! Lol.

And my point is that no matter what anyone thinks something has to give eventually. It may not be horrible yet but it can get there in a hurry or just stay weird for awhile.
 
And my point is that no matter what anyone thinks something has to give eventually. It may not be horrible yet but it can get there in a hurry or just stay weird for awhile.

LOL. Things are already weird if you ask me, especially around here. ;)
 
It's not really like that at all and by no stretch of imagination is "most" of the funds for social safety nets being "misused."

My big question about parenting licenses would be what you do with someone who had an unplanned child but fails to meet whatever arbitrary criteria you've set. Take away the child? Forced abortion?

I already answered this but I understand because the thread is huge already.

The idea of a license wouldn't work unless we somehow had reversible sterilization procedures done on everyone (e.g. at birth) that were reversed only when a license was awarded.

The media will cry fowl? (sic) How about every decent human being?

Some decent human beings are just trying to weigh reproductive rights against the rights of children to be cared for. If we only went after poor people who had already had 3 kids (and couldn't pay for their basic needs), let's say, and prohibited them from having more, I think plenty of decent human beings out there would not be so flustered about that measure of reproductive control.
 
Last edited:
The proposal was that we do away with whole welfare system and instead set people up in these apartments where all expenses are paid for them instead of them receiving cash. ...




Good Luck with having welfare rent paid directly to landlords.
Back in the 1960's and early 1970's
welfare rent went directly to Landlords in Michigan ( not sure about other states but I think I was nation wide.)

Landlords can lose up to about 3 months rent when they have to evict a tenent for non -payment.

That is why a lot of landlords want nothing to do with welfare tenents.
Here are a couple of articles about a recent rent subidies bid in Niagara County , New YorK.
February 9, 2013
GLYNN: Landlords seeking to change rent system
The Niagara Gazette Sat Feb 09, 2013, 03:05 PM EST

A number of landlords fed up with the practice of doling out the shelter allowance funds for people on public assistance want a major change in the system.

GLYNN: Landlords seeking to change rent system » Opinion » Niagara Gazette


Bid to Pay Rent Subsidies to Landlords Killed by GOP
[/B]

Is the landlord getting paid directly or not?

Apparently not.

During their Feb. 11 meeting, the Niagara County Legislature's Community Services Committee killed a home rule proposal that would have required rent subsidies for welfare recipients to be paid directly to their landlords.

The proposal was put forth by the Democratic Minority Caucus last month in a series of bills that would have also imposed criminal penalties for welfare tenants who misappropriate their housing funds. But it was killed by the Republicans and, in a surprise move, a Democratic defector.<SNIP>



Rent Assistance Often Goes Elsewhere


“Their own money,” Owen Steed says, of welfare money allocated for rent, that some tenants choose to use for other purposes, thereby stiffing the landlord.

Is it their money or the landlord's?


This is a large part of the problem: government grants of assistance for people in need are being viewed as entitlements by an ever expanding number of people.

That the recipients do not earn this money, that it was produced by the labor of another, and taken from them by threat of force, no longer matters. Stigma and shame have all but disappeared from the public sphere.

Where private charity of days gone by carried with it the co-equal responsibility that beneficiaries be good neighbors and citizens, the government requires no such charge.

The welfare tenant gets his/her welfare money based on the requirement that he or she has an apartment and is paying rent.

In fact the landlord is at the mercy of the tenant because there are plenty of places to choose from in a depressed real estate market.

If you do not require the tenant to pay the landlord, the landlord is helpless because the tenants know they can just move every two or three months, and skip out on their obligation to pay rent.

If the landlord is unable to collect a rent, then he is unable to pay the expenses of the property and the property will fall into decay and foreclosure.

Bid to Pay Rent Subsidies to Landlords Killed by GOP
 
Last edited:
Good Luck with having welfare rent paid directly to landlords.
Back in the 1960's and early 1970's
welfare rent went directly to Landlords in Michigan ( not sure about other states but I think I was nation wide.)

Landlords can lose up to about 3 months rent when they have to evict a tenent for non -payment.

That is why a lot of landlords want nothing to do with welfare tenents.
Here are a couple of articles about a recent rent subidies bid in Niagara County , New YorK.


GLYNN: Landlords seeking to change rent system » Opinion » Niagara Gazette



Bid to Pay Rent Subsidies to Landlords Killed by GOP

But this says that the landlords are NOT getting paid directly by the state. That's why they're unhappy, because they have to rely on irresponsible people to pay their rents. And that is just one county (or city). I don't see how this negates the proposal to have the rents paid directly to the landlord by the state.

The landlords are saying that they would RATHER get their rent directly from the state because the recipients don't pay them. Another bill should be brought forth to accomplish that goal. They shouldn't just give up on it.
 
But this says that the landlords are NOT getting paid directly by the state. That's why they're unhappy, because they have to rely on irresponsible people to pay their rents. And that is just one county (or city). I don't see how this negates the proposal to have the rents paid directly to the landlord by the state.

The landlords are saying that they would RATHER get their rent directly from the state because the recipients don't pay them. Another bill should be brought forth to accomplish that goal. They shouldn't just give up on it.

Yes, of course landlords want it. It was a good idea. It supplied stability for the children. They were not being moved every 3 months because of unpaid rent. I asked my congressman back in the late 1070's why they changed the laws and gave the the money to the welfare recipients instead direct rent to landlords and he just said a bunch of mumbo jumbo about tenants rights. Go figure...

Edited to add

I know landlords have fought for years in southeast Michigan to get it changed to direct payment and it has not happened here and I don't know of any state or county for that matter that has accomplished this.
please write or call your congressperson I know I have sent countless letters over the last 30 years.
 
Last edited:
Yes, of course landlords want it. It was a good idea. It supplied stability for the children. They were not being moved every 3 months because of unpaid rent. I asked my congressman back in the late 1070's why they changed the laws and gave the the money to the welfare recipients instead direct rent to landlords and he just said a bunch of mumbo jumbo about tenants rights. Go figure...

Edited to add

I know landlords have fought for years in southeast Michigan to get it changed to direct payment and it has not happened here and I don't know of any state or county for that matter that has accomplished this.
please write or call your congressperson I know I have sent countless letters over the last 30 years.

I don't know why they would be against this. It only makes sense.
 
I don't know why they would be against this. It only makes sense.

I have no idea why either.

edited to add

I also don't why they changed the policy in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Should people be required to qualify and obtain a license to have children?

I know it isn't strictly enforced but a marriage license is a license to have sex. If you breed outside of those parameters you are breaking the law. Think about it. A driver's license is a license to drive. A hunting license is a license to hunt. A marriage license must make legal some sort of behavior. Is it outrageous to assume that sex is illegal without a license?
 
Should people be required to qualify and obtain a license to have children? If so, what should be the standards to qualify and why?

People need a license to drive, hunt, fish, etc and society is inundated with government regulations as it is, and yet people can breed freely without regard for their ability to provide for their children and regardless of genetic health. Personally, I think it would be disastrous to give the government control over reproduction, especially considering the lousy job it does with everything else. And yet, it is illogical for unhealthy and/or poverty stricken people to breed.

Besides how would we enforce this? forced abortion? You would have riots in the street after the second baby murdered because the parent doesn't have a license.
 
I know it isn't strictly enforced but a marriage license is a license to have sex. If you breed outside of those parameters you are breaking the law. Think about it. A driver's license is a license to drive. A hunting license is a license to hunt. A marriage license must make legal some sort of behavior. Is it outrageous to assume that sex is illegal without a license?

doesn't stop one night stands, or premarital sex
 
I know it isn't strictly enforced but a marriage license is a license to have sex. If you breed outside of those parameters you are breaking the law. Think about it. A driver's license is a license to drive. A hunting license is a license to hunt. A marriage license must make legal some sort of behavior. Is it outrageous to assume that sex is illegal without a license?

That is not how laws work.
 
Back
Top Bottom