I'll pay you $1000 to have you snipped

[Fluid]

I'm curious - would those complaining about this program being discriminatory have the same issue with it if the incentive were removed and the government just offered it for free?

[Deejay]

That's not the kind of people who this is directed to though, and its really foolish to think it is. People have problems yes, this is designed to those who have been on Welfare an extended period of time and are building families off tax payer dollars and their children never leave the Welfare system because they know the government is going to give them money.

So you want to eradicate their means of production simply because they're not proficient enough to meet your standards?

sup hitler hows it goin

And have you ever fucking been to a welfare project? You think people actually enjoy living in those communities?

Jesus.

[*Shinzon*]

I used to live in the South Bronx, so before you even assume anything about me, yes actually I have. You are again looking too into this. There are many, many people who are obviously on welfare because they have no choice right? There are others who are welfare, because they can be. They abuse the fact that the government will provide for them and their children as long as they claim they cannot work.

So as an active measure to prevent this kind of leeching, they are suggesting to people on the system undergo the procedure. You again make it seem as though I'm directing it to the entirety of welfare when I'm not. There are two types of people on Welfare in this country. Those who are honest and can't support themselves, and those who would rather not work a day in their lives and live "comfortably" off Welfare.

Edit:

People's entitlement to think that everyone needs children is silly.

Not to mention how many babies are left abandoned/put in trash cans/ or given up for adoption, I don't see why people are so up in arms over this.

[Lampoon]

I agree with Shinzon. If you can't make ends meet and smart enough to realize that by having another child in the future is not going improve the situation, why wouldn't you agree to this?

And since we're on the topic of reproduction, I'd like to note another trend. People who have children to improve their marriage. What is wrong with this picture? If you're having marital problems and can't work it out without involving another being, especially a child, maybe marriage isn't for you.

[Boyiee]

BC pills are $30-60 per month without insurance. if you go the $30/mo route, that's $330 a year, so after 3 years of that, you've spent $1k.

~

also, i just take it for what it is. I have no medical insurance, i can't pay to get it done on my own, and i'd take it in a heart beat.

Yeah i had no clue, im insured and most pills I buy are 5-10cents for a bottle lol. Tube tying does last longer than 3yrs though lol.

I'd get cut today if I got paid for it, shit, free might work as well.

[Deejay]

I'm curious - would those complaining about this program being discriminatory have the same issue with it if the incentive were removed and the government just offered it for free?

No, I only have a problem with it because it's aimed at the poor.

Whats wrong with saying, "hey america, you're having too much babies. We'll offer you 20 bux and a bag of doritos to get your tubes tied."

The only people who would respond to this are those who REALLY want that 20 bux/bag of doritos. Or those who actually don't want to have children.

What's disgusting here, is that the government is telling the poor that they can't/shouldn't have children, while people with money are given tax breaks for having them.

That's the closest you can get to selective breeding without actually calling it such.

[Fluid]

IF you're a female in the "reproducing years" that has no desire to have children, and has no insurance, and little to no income, it is *impossible* to find a deal like this.

It's not mandatory. If it was I'd be pissed about it. But that'd be offering me something that costs anywhere from $3-5k, they'd pay for it, AND give me $1k? That would mean I could recover and not have to stress about bills.

And if it means I see less people coming in with food stamps and buying filet mignon for their squalling passel of brats while chain smoking marlboros and smelling like three weeks worth of dirt, I'm all for it.

People's entitlement to think that everyone needs children is silly.

Exactly!

[Deejay]

So as an active measure to prevent this kind of leeching, they are suggesting to people on the system undergo the procedure. You again make it seem as though I'm directing it to the entirety of welfare when I'm not. There are two types of people on Welfare in this country. Those who are honest and can't support themselves, and those who would rather not work a day in their lives and live "comfortably" off Welfare.

Edit:
Not to mention how many babies are left abandoned/put in trash cans/ or given up for adoption, I don't see why people are so up in arms over this.

Ah, well excuse me for making that shitty assumption. But still...

There are also people who have children and realize that they don't want their own kids to be subjected to a poor life much like their own.

Believe it or not, some people who have children actually become better citizens because of it. I'm not saying it happens 100% of the time, but certainly more than those who toss their babies in garbage cans.

[*Shinzon*]

No, I only have a problem with it because it's aimed at the poor.

Whats wrong with saying, "hey america, you're having too much babies. We'll offer you 20 bux and a bag of doritos to get your tubes tied."

The only people who would respond to this are those who REALLY want that 20 bux/bag of doritos. Or those who actually don't want to have children.

What's disgusting here, is that the government is telling the poor that they can't/shouldn't have children, while people with money are given tax breaks for having them.

That's the closest you can get to selective breeding without actually calling it such.

I don't understand dude who else should it be aimed at? OF COURSE, they're going to give tax breaks to people who can have large families and support them, IE the rich people because the taxes on food/clothes/cars whatever it may be is going to be a very significant sum.

Would you rather continue to pay taxes to support someone who you KNOW, can work but you KNOW, they wont and are going to continue to leech off the system. The government is in so much shit right now that they don't or soon won't have the means to keep all these people on Welfare, and if this economic trend keeps up, they're going to lose it whether they like it or not. Wouldn't you rather have the people who really truly need it keep it, rather than have the whole system crash?

[jmc]

IF you're a female in the "reproducing years" that has no desire to have children, and has no insurance, and little to no income, it is *impossible* to find a deal like this.

It's not mandatory. If it was I'd be pissed about it. But that'd be offering me something that costs anywhere from $3-5k, they'd pay for it, AND give me $1k? That would mean I could recover and not have to stress about bills.

And if it means I see less people coming in with food stamps and buying filet mignon for their squalling passel of brats while chain smoking marlboros and smelling like three weeks worth of dirt, I'm all for it.

People's entitlement to think that everyone needs children is silly.

and for the record, i've never made over $18k in any given year in my life, even though I've worked since I was 16, and I've never been on food stamps or welfare because I didn't feel that i needed to be.

good stereotype of a welfare family right there......


If people are that fed up with "lowering the welfare population before birth", why not listen to the people who want to blow up various housing projects lol

[Cesaria]

While the chav mums over here onto their 3rd or 4th kid annoy the living daylights out of me - I'm uncomfortable about the selective breeding aspect of this. I've met some poor families who really really care about their kids, and some rich families who couldn't give a flying fuck. I'm not sure how it works over in the States but I'd rather the Government put their foot down over here and gave zero child benefit for any kid past number 2 or something - once as an accident is fine, twice is an indication that you really need to consider things a bit more carefully... anything after that is taking the piss.

Yes the mums who have an endless stream of offspring from assorted fathers who aren't brought up, but are dragged up by a cable TV subscription and pot noodles (if you don't have them over the pond count yourselves lucky) really do piss me off - especially when I want kids but aren't in the position financially to be secure enough to have them - but I don't think rounding the poor up and tying their tubes is the answer... although after several crap days at work with particularly idiotic parents I've been known to come home muttering about driving tests for parenting before people are allowed to get naked and sprog.

If you'd have put that sort of offer in front of me 5 years ago - I'd probably have been jumping at the idea to get it for myself... now those smug bastards who told me I'd change my mind are bloody right and I'm glad as hell that there wasn't anything like that around because I DO want kids.

Anyhow - aren't women only half the problem? They wouldn't be getting up the duff if the blokes weren't dipping their wicks everywhere and anywhere - if you're going to offer incentives... make it equal for both sides! Generally when I've worked in areas where there are the stereotypical families described above - the same men seem to be doing a nice loop of the local female population.

BTW giving condoms to school kids ain't the answer - you can always tell when the local comps have had "the talk" from the number of interestingly shaped "balloons" coming out of the school gates... they sure as hell ain't putting them where you think they are.

[Fluid]

It's easy to talk about how good circumstances can produce a bad kid, or bad circumstances produce a good kid... in the same sense that anyone can talk about finding a severed finger in a can of chili, or a band-aid in their hamburger. Yeah, these things happen often - but not often enough for me to plan on finding anything unpleasant in my lunch.

There's no point in being afraid to play the odds a little.

[Lampoon]

I love chicks with brit accent. Let's have a baby together!

[*Shinzon*]

While the chav mums over here onto their 3rd or 4th kid annoy the living daylights out of me - I'm uncomfortable about the selective breeding aspect of this. I've met some poor families who really really care about their kids, and some rich families who couldn't give a flying fuck. I'm not sure how it works over in the States but I'd rather the Government put their foot down over here and gave zero child benefit for any kid past number 2 or something - once as an accident is fine, twice is an indication that you really need to consider things a bit more carefully... anything after that is taking the piss.

Yes the mums who have an endless stream of offspring from assorted fathers who aren't brought up, but are dragged up by a cable TV subscription and pot noodles (if you don't have them over the pond count yourselves lucky) really do piss me off - especially when I want kids but aren't in the position financially to be secure enough to have them - but I don't think rounding the poor up and tying their tubes is the answer... although after several crap days at work with particularly idiotic parents I've been known to come home muttering about driving tests for parenting before people are allowed to get naked and sprog.

If you'd have put that sort of offer in front of me 5 years ago - I'd probably have been jumping at the idea to get it for myself... now those smug bastards who told me I'd change my mind are bloody right and I'm glad as hell that there wasn't anything like that around because I DO want kids.

Anyhow - aren't women only half the problem? They wouldn't be getting up the duff if the blokes weren't dipping their wicks everywhere and anywhere - if you're going to offer incentives... make it equal for both sides! Generally when I've worked in areas where there are the stereotypical families described above - the same men seem to be doing a nice loop of the local female population.

BTW giving condoms to school kids ain't the answer - you can always tell when the local comps have had "the talk" from the number of interestingly shaped "balloons" coming out of the school gates... they sure as hell ain't putting them where you think they are.

They could and should offer it to males as well, if I'm correct in my understanding the operation on a male is much easier to perform I think. It would also solve alot of the sexist/whatever theories people have about this.

[Deejay]

I don't understand dude who else should it be aimed at? OF COURSE, they're going to give tax breaks to people who can have large families and support them, IE the rich people because the taxes on food/clothes/cars whatever it may be is going to be a very significant sum.

But are the Rich/educated the only people who pay taxes? It said in the articale that college-educated/wealthy will be given tax cuts. This is silly when they're obviously not the only people who have children and pay taxes.

What about the regular highschool graduate/working class? They're the ones who actually NEED tax breaks most, and they're being ignored... even if they're paying their fair share to the government.

[Woozie]

I see your point, Shin, but I think the solution would be more deterrants for leechers rather than this. I'm not going to pretend I have the perfect solution; if I did have it I'd be running for office myself. But I do think that the current system needs to be reformed in many ways. I grew up on this system, and half of my family are still on it, so I've seen many of the flaws in the current welfare system that need to be amended. I had a huge lists of things that need changed and a huge wall of text of examples of stuff I've seen, but I just erased half my post because I felt it was too long and drawn out. So to make a long post short: there are plenty of other things we should be doing instead of something like what this guy is proposing

[*Shinzon*]

But are the Rich/educated the only people who pay taxes? It said in the articale that college-educated/wealthy will be given tax cuts. They're not the only people who have children and pay taxes for it.

What about the regular highschool graduate/working class? They're the ones who actually NEED tax breaks most, and they're being ignored... even if they're paying their fair share to the government.

I agree totally with that statement about the working class, and assuming they can support a medium size family, they should be entitled to those tax breaks. There shouldn't be that gap between rich and working class if they can meet the same standard of providing care for their children.

[Cesaria]

I get angry on behalf of the people who are working and are just above the benefit line more than anything else - they're the ones who deserve tax breaks more than anyone because they'd probably be better off on benefits than working but they choose to work rather than sit on their asses and watch Jeremy Kyle all day (he makes Jerry Springer look classy).

[eunhye]

I think you all are doing it wrong. Get some enemas. Get some KY jelly. Put it in the butt. Promote this. Promote anal sex. Problem solved.

[Azalee]

I would let them do it to me for free. >.>; I never want kids, but you usually can't get anything done about it until you are at LEAST 24.

I have 5 more years of daily pills to go. ._.