quote:

ORIGINAL: kiwisub12

Heck, i think we should pay people to be neutered - no income cap, just make those puppies sterile , male and female, no age limit either way.

Its cheaper not to raise children, than to raise them.
I also think that if the government is going to pay women to have children there should be a limit - as in, full benefits for one - after all , anyone can make a mistake, half benefits for the second, and if you want benefits for the third, you have to be steralized. One mistake - sure, two - ok, but dubious, third mistake - is not a mistake and since they are not able to take care of the problem, the government will.

and for all those bleeding heart liberals (of which i am usually one) - i support fully the right of any woman to have as many kids as they want - just not on my buck. If they want the money i work hard and long for, they have to have limits imposed. This way they have a choice - welfare money - or not. There is nothing written anywhere that allows people to breed like bunnies when they can't afford it.
I had two kids because that is what i could afford, and the fact that i was sensible enough to realise it makes me more responsible than someone who has two kids and no job or skills to finance it. If the truth be know, i would have liked to have had 6 and been a stay-at-home mum - BUT the money wasn't there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
The same people who will scream from the mountaintops the inefficiancy of government....yet would contemplate putting such a prgram into those very same hands.[8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic



The genii doesn't just hop back in the bottle, though. Government has already taken over the dispersal of other people's money to the poor.

They give it to the rich too only more...but then you already knew that.


That's why, as I see a route to reforming the system, participants are going to have to sign on voluntarily, waive some rights (drug testing is going to be mandatory), and be free to leave the program any time they like.

This is just for the poor people right you do not want to do this to the rich people with their snouts in the public trough?

We have something already in place regarding family size here in CA. The "maximum family grant," which basically says that if you are already getting benefits when you get knocked up, that little bastard won't get you a cash-aid raise.

Your opinion is that the children of the poor are bastards?


Of course, the law was so horiribly written that families were winning court appeals and being handed year's worth of back benefits in a lump sum.

You mean they won because a court of law said they were right.  So by this do we take that you are against the rule of law?