SpaceGhost Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 its like the movie idiocracy Is that the Mike Judge Movie about how civilization is getting more stupid. Edit: I looked it up, yes it is. great movie. I agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUGT Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 personally no, but its still better for the child probably if shes nuts.. some people have the means I hear ya. The system is just broken. Good people with means can't adopt kids in a timely cost effective manner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUGT Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Seems the simple option is to Tax children instead of giving breaks for them. More children is more drain on resources, let's get their parents to pay for some of it. Maybe not tax the FIRST kid, but 2 and the breaks go away, 3 and you start paying more taxes for each one. Cant' agree with this. Once again, it penalizes those who follow the rules. (Just like this mortgage bailout BS). The source(parents) must be treated. Not the sympton (children) What do you do with triplets? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted February 19, 2009 Report Share Posted February 19, 2009 Is that the Mike Judge Movie about how civilization is getting more stupid. Edit: I looked it up, yes it is. great movie. I agree. Just Netflix'd it. Thanks. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirks5oh Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 we're just seeing the reverse of darwinism--people who are least fit to reproduce (idiots with no intelligence, physically inferior, can't support themselves) are having the most offspring, and their offspring are otherwise healthy and live long enough to reproduce. we have a rule in the trauma world--if you do not have a high school education, are unemployed, have more tattoos than teeth, and do not know where both your parents live, then you are virtually indestructible--you will survive stabbings, shootings, being hit by a semi, etc. etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 Seems the simple option is to Tax children instead of giving breaks for them. More children is more drain on resources, let's get their parents to pay for some of it. Maybe not tax the FIRST kid, but 2 and the breaks go away, 3 and you start paying more taxes for each one. i like that idea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1veryfastvr4 Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 How about a free "tube-tie" or all expense paid vesectomy for any parent of a second child born into public assistance? i say that all the time, people get so pissy when i say but come on these people keep having kids and getting more cash/food stamps/ health care..... what about the rest of us? it pays to be like that i guess? what freaking reward is there for ppl that pay their own bills and do it the right way? why do that when you can be jobless and have ten kids and stay at home and have nicer things and eat better than everyone else? we were in walmart other night getting few things and this hog of a bitch got infront of us inline to plot out $356 in food...... i bet everybit of 150 was steaks then pulls out her welfare card or what ever it is the lady ringing it up just glared at her and she went on her way! lady told us she still had money left on the card ..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1veryfastvr4 Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 PDQGP FOR PRESIDENT frankly they deserve to get the boot. The children however, probably should go into the system and maybe have some chance at a good life, with new parents he has my vote...... sometimes i think i have good ideas for this nation and the gf says thats mean and disrespectful to those that are less fortunate its nice to see im not only one that thinks this way! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1veryfastvr4 Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 3 post ftw lol I'm not saying everyone that collects gov't assistance shouldn't get it but there is a ladder of ppl that shouldn't.... like my cousin... on welfare the whole nine yards doesn't work has 2 kids by who knows, has a live in bf that has no job, they pay nearly nothing for rent with gov't ass. they eat like they are kings, and they always have the newest clothes out on head to toe, i don't go out drinking much but when i do they are always out spending money like no probably...now im not saying they don't make a lil cash on side dealing or what have you but they are job less and get gov't ass... now why on earth do they get 3 times more than me back in taxes? they dont pay one dime in! on top that why do ppl like this get the stimulus check? once again they don't pay anything in they shouldn't be entitled to it or is that wrong of me to think that? another thought i had while taking a dump (kinda like our economy) no pun was something i yet to see bitched bout much..... how bout ppl that take disability from the gov't that don't need it they just working the system also.....i personally can think of 5 without straining my brain to much that live close to my parents.....so for simple math there are 317 cities in ohio, if 1 person in each city knew 4 ppl abusing the disability system thats 1268 ppl in Ohio using it wrong, now a simple figure of 10k per person ( and you know they have to get more than that so 317x4= 1268x10k= $12,680,000 so there is some money per OHIO can save right if they looked in to things like that? on a further note perhaps that was across all 52 states on average mind you $12,680,000x52 = $659,360,000 a yr..... anyone think that seems fair? maybe time to look into another country to live in lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copperhead Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 I would think that childbearing would fall under the right to pursue happiness. Although welfare doesn't. Everyone has the right to have as many children as they wish. The taxpayers shouldn't be burdened by these people. End of story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRocket1647545505 Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 I would think that childbearing would fall under the right to pursue happiness. Although welfare doesn't. Everyone has the right to have as many children as they wish. The taxpayers shouldn't be burdened by these people. End of story. Winrar again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iwashmycar Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 I would think that childbearing would fall under the right to pursue happiness. Although welfare doesn't. Everyone has the right to have as many children as they wish. The taxpayers shouldn't be burdened by these people. End of story. qft Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUGT Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 I would think that childbearing would fall under the right to pursue happiness. Although welfare doesn't. Everyone has the right to have as many children as they wish. The taxpayers shouldn't be burdened by these people. End of story. I wish it were like this. I truly do. However, nothing changes unless there are consequences for behavior. If the only consequence is a starving child that the tax payers refuse to help, then I dont see that ever happening. These people will continue to abuse the system because they know the majority of folks dont want to see dead kids in the streets. Treat the cause, not the sympton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brrcats Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 I wonder how much success someone would have running a campaign using the ideas we have raised today. It would be interesting to see just how many people are fed up seeing people abuse the system Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted February 20, 2009 Report Share Posted February 20, 2009 I wonder how much success someone would have running a campaign using the ideas we have raised today. It would be interesting to see just how many people are fed up seeing people abuse the system I think my points about only offering support for the first child and the strong likelihood of the state taking them would fly. There would be opposition and costs would come into play, but in the end, I think it's evident in the mortgage crisis situation that the greater good is tired supporting the rest. It was said on late night TV, Those of us paying our bills and working hard have sympathy and offer support to those less fortunate, but those that are just plain stupid...to hell with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1veryfastvr4 Posted February 21, 2009 Report Share Posted February 21, 2009 I wonder how much success someone would have running a campaign using the ideas we have raised today. It would be interesting to see just how many people are fed up seeing people abuse the system pdqgp for prez right? i will lend some thoughts if he can find a place for me in the white house lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
87GT Posted February 21, 2009 Report Share Posted February 21, 2009 I agree with most of the stuff in here. If you are on welfare and having MORE kids you should be offered no assistance. If you have enough money then have as many kids as you see is fit. Another thing that pisses me off is that tv show where this family has 17 kids plus another on the way. They make enough money to pay for everything. The younger kids are not raised enough by their mom and dad. Most of the time in the show the older females take care of the kids. You got to draw the line sometime! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorne Posted February 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2009 I would think that childbearing would fall under the right to pursue happiness. Although welfare doesn't. Everyone has the right to have as many children as they wish. The taxpayers shouldn't be burdened by these people. End of story. Like I've said before. I don't see a problem with some social services but people who abuse them need shot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSUPITTSBURGH427 Posted February 21, 2009 Report Share Posted February 21, 2009 Dumb Cunt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.