- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 10/10/17 at 9:12 am to TH03
quote:
Owning a farm means you aren't poor.
Homestead much? Land passed down generations much?
Posted on 10/10/17 at 9:13 am to Pecker
Poor people are irresponsible and rich people are assholes. No babies for anybody, we're all full on babies.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 9:14 am to BestBanker
Owning property means you can sell it for money if needed. A farm means you have a job for income.
That's not the same as some broke, jobless a-hole living off the government.
I can't believe you can't tell the difference.
That's not the same as some broke, jobless a-hole living off the government.
I can't believe you can't tell the difference.
This post was edited on 10/10/17 at 9:14 am
Posted on 10/10/17 at 9:14 am to Pecker
Welfare benefits should only pay for the first two children in the family ONLY. It should also be temporary like unemployment, shouldn't be forever. 6-12 months is long enough to find a job! Yeah u may have to sweat or work for less than $15/hr but so be it, better than starving!
Posted on 10/10/17 at 9:14 am to Pecker
I agree with all this.
They should not have pets either.
Prove they can take care of themselves first
They should not have pets either.
Prove they can take care of themselves first
This post was edited on 10/10/17 at 9:15 am
Posted on 10/10/17 at 9:15 am to SidewalkDawg
NIEN!! BLEIB REIN!!
Posted on 10/10/17 at 9:15 am to Pecker
a far easier system would be to eliminate all current government assistant programs and replace them with a UBI
that way, everyone gets the same "handout" and if you decide to have kids - thats on you
that way, everyone gets the same "handout" and if you decide to have kids - thats on you
This post was edited on 10/10/17 at 9:16 am
Posted on 10/10/17 at 9:17 am to Pecker
You're not going to stop poor people with little to do from having sex. What we could stop is subsidizing this lifestyle or go one step further and tax it.
It won't completely solve the problem but it damn sure would slow it down.
It won't completely solve the problem but it damn sure would slow it down.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 9:19 am to Pecker
quote:
Should people on welfare be allowed to have children?
So are you saying that anyone who gets govt assistance shouldn’t be allowed to have kids?
Posted on 10/10/17 at 9:20 am to Nado Jenkins83
quote:
I agree with all this.
They should not have pets either.
Prove they can take care of themselves first
You inevitably get the idiots who say things like "so much for small government conservatives." They ignore the part where I'm against welfare in general. I think charities are better suited to handling our poor and needy. It shouldn't be the government.
So yes, I want the government to be smaller.
BUT the government is not going to do away with welfare. The only way to limit the amount of welfare going out to people who don't need it is to impose strict rules on said welfare. You inevitably forfeit some personal liberties when you rely on the government for food and housing. That's how this agreement goes. It's not your money.
This post was edited on 10/10/17 at 9:21 am
Posted on 10/10/17 at 9:21 am to kingbob
quote:
Allowed? Yes
Paid to? No
This.
You can't force people to not have kids. That is ridiculous.
But you can de-incentivize it, while at the same time pay them heavy rewards to get vasectomies.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 9:21 am to Pecker
quote:
child becomes a ward of the state,
Okay, so now you're still paying for each child. The cycle will continue bc this individual will grow up in the system, and not have the proper resources to succeed. Once again becoming a burden tax payers will pay for.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 9:21 am to Pecker
Im not for murdering babies, how about they put the kids up for adoption?
What if the family was doing had a couple kids then fell in hard times?
What if the family was doing had a couple kids then fell in hard times?
Posted on 10/10/17 at 9:21 am to rocket31
quote:
a far easier system would be to eliminate all current government assistant programs and replace them with a UBI
that way, everyone gets the same "handout" and if you decide to have kids - thats on you
I agree. The problem is that we have a segment of this population who will burn through that and still need help. What do we do with them? They have votes. And they will vote for whomever continues the gravy train
This post was edited on 10/10/17 at 9:22 am
Posted on 10/10/17 at 9:23 am to SCndaBR
quote:
Okay, so now you're still paying for each child. The cycle will continue bc this individual will grow up in the system, and not have the proper resources to succeed. Once again becoming a burden tax payers will pay for.
We're paying for that child anyway. It's not your child. It's the state's.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 9:23 am to Pecker
HELL NO
E
L
L
N
O
E
L
L
N
O
Posted on 10/10/17 at 9:24 am to rocket31
quote:
a far easier system would be to eliminate all current government assistant programs and replace them with a UBI
that way, everyone gets the same "handout" and if you decide to have kids - thats on you
I don't disagree but the problem with our nanny state is that once folks started burning through their UBI money, government programs would start popping up again to bail their asses out. UBI would only work if their was a constitutional amendment that ended all other forms of entitlements and capped the UBI to adjust only with inflation.
Politicians would almost exclusively run on raising the UBI or adding more programs to the UBI framework. It's a Pandora's box that I don't think we should open.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 9:25 am to Pecker
We should pay people not to have kids.
I am all for bonuses for sterilization and a DECREASE in benefits the more children you have.
This would cause the poorer and dumber people to have fewer kids, which is what we need. This would solve many of our problems and would be voluntary.
We currently incentivize having more children. Why would incentivizing less children be controversial?
I am all for bonuses for sterilization and a DECREASE in benefits the more children you have.
This would cause the poorer and dumber people to have fewer kids, which is what we need. This would solve many of our problems and would be voluntary.
We currently incentivize having more children. Why would incentivizing less children be controversial?
Page 2 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News