If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   New Pennsylvania bill includes provision requiring women to prove they were raped. Want to guess which party inserted the provision?   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 474
    More: Sick, Pennsylvania, Equal Pay Act, welfare benefits, Paycheck Fairness Act, Priebus tried, shiny objects, Priebus, Violence Against Women Act  
•       •       •

8710 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Oct 2012 at 1:53 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



474 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-25 08:56:49 AM
FFS its not about the mother its about the kid. The kid is born, it exists. Want to incentivise people to have less kids? Do it in a way that doesn't punish the kid that is already born.
 
2012-10-25 08:58:08 AM

machoprogrammer: Republicans are retarded, but if you are already on welfare (before you get pregnant), you shouldn't get more money when you have more kids.


So children can't collect welfare? Because that's what you are claiming, that children shouldn't be allowed to collect from the basic subsistence safety nets we put in place to keep society from crumbling.

Kids are born not because their parents are trying to collect cash, but because they enjoy f*cking, just like every other human being on this planet
 
2012-10-25 08:58:27 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: REMINDER: People on welfare didn't cost us 15 million jobs and trillions in savings. People on Wall Street did.- LOLGOP (@LOLGOP) September 21, 2012


[citation needed]
 
2012-10-25 08:58:32 AM

Lost Thought 00: LiberalConservative: So poor people (starving or non-starving) should be entitled to a free pass on welfare fraud just because they are poor?

I'm not going to cry too much if someone who is dirt poor gets a little extra money than they deserve and can live their life just a little bit further from the brink of destruction



so fraud is ok if i makes you feel better? Continuing the cycle of people that cant afford kids having more kids generation after generation in larger numbers is ok because it makes you feel better? You are the problem
 
2012-10-25 09:00:08 AM

littleray42: I'm not understanding all this outrage. If you want to claim that you are entitled to ANY government benefit, don't you usually have to submit some form of evidence to support your claim? Since when does the government just take your word for it? If I was a single mother on welfare with 5 kids, I would be telling you I was raped 5 times if that's all it takes to get benefits.

/not a republican.


The only proof you have to show is that of your own poverty, which is generally pretty simple. Why should the child have to show any more evidence than that? Why must the child prove it was conceived by rape?
 
2012-10-25 09:00:26 AM

Alphax: LiberalConservative: FFS. Help the small proportion of child starvation cases by providing targeted food/money, not by willfully allowing welfare fraud/rorting by a majority who are not starving.

According to whom?


Not quite sure what your question is referring too. Do you mean the "small proportion" bit? If so, last time I looked the hospitals (or morgues) are not filled with masses of starving children - that's a pretty good indicator.
Regardless, you would rather willfully permit welfare fraud/rort above targeting the problems of those in need directly?
 
2012-10-25 09:00:33 AM

Brostorm: Lost Thought 00: LiberalConservative: So poor people (starving or non-starving) should be entitled to a free pass on welfare fraud just because they are poor?

I'm not going to cry too much if someone who is dirt poor gets a little extra money than they deserve and can live their life just a little bit further from the brink of destruction


so fraud is ok if i makes you feel better? Continuing the cycle of people that cant afford kids having more kids generation after generation in larger numbers is ok because it makes you feel better? You are the problem


It shouldn't be fraud in the first place because the kid should be covered no matter how into it his mother was.
 
2012-10-25 09:00:37 AM

Debeo Summa Credo:

I'm sure your rapist would appreciate it of you didn't report it.

However, any of his future victims would likely not.


It's easy to say that when you're anonymously typing on the internet.
 
2012-10-25 09:03:29 AM

CPennypacker: Brostorm: Lost Thought 00: LiberalConservative: So poor people (starving or non-starving) should be entitled to a free pass on welfare fraud just because they are poor?

I'm not going to cry too much if someone who is dirt poor gets a little extra money than they deserve and can live their life just a little bit further from the brink of destruction


so fraud is ok if i makes you feel better? Continuing the cycle of people that cant afford kids having more kids generation after generation in larger numbers is ok because it makes you feel better? You are the problem

It shouldn't be fraud in the first place because the kid should be covered no matter how into it his mother was.


If you stop the fraud the money saved could be used to prevent/reduce the problems that cause the poverty.
 
2012-10-25 09:03:33 AM

CPennypacker: FFS its not about the mother its about the kid. The kid is born, it exists. Want to incentivise people to have less kids? Do it in a way that doesn't punish the kid that is already born.


Sorry, any thing that effects people getting more money for more kids will be seen by you as hurting the children. Welfare should be in hard amounts no tied to having more children, it puts the responsibility on the parents

I am all for more state sponsored soup kitchens for children that supply at least three meals a day. The outrageous fraud program known as food stamps could easily be converted into a actual food program where the people intended to be fed are fed healthy meals and their "parents" are just seen at the super market selling their food stamps at the beginning of the month. I believe in actually helping children, to subsidizing failures to have more children
 
2012-10-25 09:03:44 AM

MorrisBird: What if you don't know who raped you? My daughter doesn't. She was drugged. I love the Republicans. They're throwing away their power by waging a war on rape victims. Brilliant.


You don't have to know who did. Just report it. A 5 minute call to file a report does the trick. How onerous. Oh no. With all the videos of acorn telling people how to game the system is filing a report when a rape really does occur so awful?

Some perspective perhaps.
 
2012-10-25 09:04:11 AM

Parmenius: What ever happened to the Fark(tm) proposal to start referring to the GOP as the "White Male Christian Nationalist Party"?


White Male Straight Fundamentalist Nationalist Party fighting hard for those poor oppressed millionaires.
 
2012-10-25 09:04:24 AM

Brostorm: The outrageous fraud program known as food stamps


Still waiting on some numbers. Any numbers.
 
2012-10-25 09:04:38 AM

Lost Thought 00: machoprogrammer: Republicans are retarded, but if you are already on welfare (before you get pregnant), you shouldn't get more money when you have more kids.

So children can't collect welfare? Because that's what you are claiming, that children shouldn't be allowed to collect from the basic subsistence safety nets we put in place to keep society from crumbling.

Kids are born not because their parents are trying to collect cash, but because they enjoy f*cking, just like every other human being on this planet


You are correct, but the problem is a bit more two-edged. All people on welfare are on it because they are irresponsible. I'm not saying that to be mean at all, it's just a fact. People who make better decisions don't need a handout. Those same people who irresponsible enough to need welfare are going to be irresponsible with birth control as well.

That said, regardless of the circumstances of conception, the children deserve to be taken care of.

Possible solutions:
Compulsory sterilization as a requisite for welfare (men and women)
Removal of child by CPS from mothers who have a baby while on welfare
Getting rid of welfare altogether
Just saying 'fark it' and pay everyone with however many kids and on whatever drugs as much as they need until we are all bankrupt.
 
2012-10-25 09:05:18 AM

LiberalConservative: If you stop the fraud the money saved could be used to prevent/reduce the problems that cause the poverty.


You couldn't even name 1 cause of poverty
 
2012-10-25 09:05:40 AM

LiberalConservative: If you stop the fraud the money saved could be used to prevent/reduce the problems that cause the poverty.


If you incentivise people to act responsbily instead of punishing them for acting irrisponsibly there will be less poverty in the first place.

Brostorm:

I am all for more state sponsored soup kitchens for children that supply at least three meals a day. The outrageous fraud program known as food stamps could easily be converted into a actual food program where the people intended to be fed are fed healthy meals and their "parents" are just seen at the super market selling their food stamps at the beginning of the month. I believe in actually helping children, to subsidizing failures to have more children


Children need clothes and a place to live too. You can't wear soup in a soup house made of soup.
 
2012-10-25 09:05:58 AM
The GOP just wants to return to a time when ladies were cherished and protected. Real ladies are always chaperoned and protected. Real ladies have to go into public unchaperoned because their husbands or fathers earn enough to keep them cherished and protected. Unmarried real ladies have chaperones and companions to ensure they are never alone at any time. If they must leave home for school at any point, the school must be of the best character and its student's must be under twenty-four hour watch. Married ladies have husbands and companions and strong male guards (who can also double as in-home waiters at parties).

If you do not have these things, you are not a lady. That means you are fair game for rape, but it would not be a legitimate rape. Men, if you were real men, you would be able to provide all the things a woman needs to be considered a real lady. If you cannot do this, it is your fault if your daughters or wives get raped (which, of course, would not be a legitimate rape). Why is your wife out in public earning a living? Why do you let your daughters be educated? If they are out in public unguarded, they are just asking for it.

You should consider your lucky, though. Those rape babies you're rearing could very well be the children of real men, not someone like you. This is your gift from God.
 
2012-10-25 09:07:00 AM

littleray42: All people on welfare are on it because they are irresponsible. I'm not saying that to be mean at all, it's just a fact.


I would argue that only two things really drive conservative morality: is us versus them, and punishment and reward. Worship of free markets, psychological dependence on dualistic religious schemes of heaven and hell, and even their apparent mass lack of empathy is really all about punishment and reward. If you didn't get rich enough with the right job, you deserve to be poor and die of untreated medical conditions. If you didn't keep your legs crossed, you deserve to be forced into childbirth. If you did anything to bring yourself under government suspicion, you deserve to be subject to police brutality and torture. The rest of the racial and religious aggression and resentment is just a function of tribal us versus them mentality. Sanctity, loyalty and authority aren't core values of the conservative mind, but simply functions of the principles of punishment and reward, and us versus them. Link 

Pegged.
 
2012-10-25 09:07:17 AM

Lost Thought 00: littleray42: I'm not understanding all this outrage. If you want to claim that you are entitled to ANY government benefit, don't you usually have to submit some form of evidence to support your claim? Since when does the government just take your word for it? If I was a single mother on welfare with 5 kids, I would be telling you I was raped 5 times if that's all it takes to get benefits.

/not a republican.

The only proof you have to show is that of your own poverty, which is generally pretty simple. Why should the child have to show any more evidence than that? Why must the child prove it was conceived by rape?


The benefit is for raped mothers. To get the raped mother benefit, you need to be raped first. You can't run the Special Olympics unless you're retarded either.

/expecting letter like the one Coulter got.
//she's biatch
 
2012-10-25 09:07:44 AM

LiberalConservative: Alphax: SandMann: Alphax: SandMann: Big deal.

If someone is claiming a government handout they should have to prove they qualify. It doesn't matter what it is. If not, the system will be abused.

What part of 'keeping desperately poor mothers and their children from starving' is something to be abused? Afraid they might double dip and get to eat until they're not hungry?

I know people who game the system. None of them face starvation.

You'll have to do better than that.

FFS. Help the small proportion of child starvation cases by providing targeted food/money, not by willfully allowing welfare fraud/rorting by a majority who are not starving.


If they are not starving it is because the system works. We do not have children starving in the streets because we have a safety net. That $1.31 per meal per kid that we give children isn't hurting anyone. If you know people who are gaming the system and you didn't report them then you are just as bad.
 
2012-10-25 09:08:20 AM

littleray42: You are correct, but the problem is a bit more two-edged. All people on welfare are on it because they are irresponsible. I'm not saying that to be mean at all, it's just a fact. People who make better decisions don't need a handout. Those same people who irresponsible enough to need welfare are going to be irresponsible with birth control as well.


You have an interesting, fictional look on life.
 
2012-10-25 09:08:23 AM

littleray42: All people on welfare are on it because they are irresponsible.


Enough of this bullshiat. *Ploink*
 
2012-10-25 09:09:07 AM
I dunno'. Do Republican women voters rinse with Procaine after every meal, or what?
 
2012-10-25 09:09:13 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: littleray42: All people on welfare are on it because they are irresponsible. I'm not saying that to be mean at all, it's just a fact.

I would argue that only two things really drive conservative morality: is us versus them, and punishment and reward. Worship of free markets, psychological dependence on dualistic religious schemes of heaven and hell, and even their apparent mass lack of empathy is really all about punishment and reward. If you didn't get rich enough with the right job, you deserve to be poor and die of untreated medical conditions. If you didn't keep your legs crossed, you deserve to be forced into childbirth. If you did anything to bring yourself under government suspicion, you deserve to be subject to police brutality and torture. The rest of the racial and religious aggression and resentment is just a function of tribal us versus them mentality. Sanctity, loyalty and authority aren't core values of the conservative mind, but simply functions of the principles of punishment and reward, and us versus them. Link 

Pegged.


You really didn't say that my point was wrong. You just spouted a bunch of someone else's thoughts.

Pegged
 
2012-10-25 09:10:02 AM

andino: It kind of makes you wonder how many of these Republican politicians are rapists themselves. Not necessarily recently, but more likely when they were in high school or college. They may have committed their crimes years ago, but they still are, and always will be, rapists.

How else can you explain their sympathy--and even affinity--for rapists?


A lot of men who commit rape still hate rapists, they just don't see their own actions as being rape.

It's more likely that these assholes hate women rather than have sympathy for rapists.
 
2012-10-25 09:10:07 AM

littleray42: Lost Thought 00: machoprogrammer: Republicans are retarded, but if you are already on welfare (before you get pregnant), you shouldn't get more money when you have more kids.

So children can't collect welfare? Because that's what you are claiming, that children shouldn't be allowed to collect from the basic subsistence safety nets we put in place to keep society from crumbling.

Kids are born not because their parents are trying to collect cash, but because they enjoy f*cking, just like every other human being on this planet

You are correct, but the problem is a bit more two-edged. All people on welfare are on it because they are irresponsible. I'm not saying that to be mean at all, it's just a fact. People who make better decisions don't need a handout. Those same people who irresponsible enough to need welfare are going to be irresponsible with birth control as well.

That said, regardless of the circumstances of conception, the children deserve to be taken care of.

Possible solutions:
Compulsory sterilization as a requisite for welfare (men and women)
Removal of child by CPS from mothers who have a baby while on welfare
Getting rid of welfare altogether
Just saying 'fark it' and pay everyone with however many kids and on whatever drugs as much as they need until we are all bankrupt.


Millions of people who lost everything when the economy tanked might disagree with you. A responsible person who got laid off in '09 and hasn't been able to find a job, has used up their savings (which they responsibly saved) and is on welfare is unfortunate, not necessarily irresponsible. There are plenty of people who made good decisions but still find themselves needing a handout since they can't find a job.
 
2012-10-25 09:10:16 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: However, any of his future victims would likely not.


I love how altruistic you expect a woman to be for the 'sake of all' but cannot spare that same altruism towards a child, no matter how it was conceived.

Has anyone asked what happens if it is the woman's first child that is born of rape but the second was not? Then what?
 
2012-10-25 09:10:21 AM

Lost Thought 00: LiberalConservative: If you stop the fraud the money saved could be used to prevent/reduce the problems that cause the poverty.

You couldn't even name 1 cause of poverty


Are you stupid? How about having children while already being on welfare.
 
2012-10-25 09:10:23 AM

littleray42: You just spouted a bunch of someone else's thoughts.


That describe your entire philosophy on the subject perfectly. Just a coincidence I guess.
 
2012-10-25 09:10:45 AM

Alphax: littleray42: You are correct, but the problem is a bit more two-edged. All people on welfare are on it because they are irresponsible. I'm not saying that to be mean at all, it's just a fact. People who make better decisions don't need a handout. Those same people who irresponsible enough to need welfare are going to be irresponsible with birth control as well.

You have an interesting, fictional look on life.


Awesome. The 'huh uh' rebuttal. Next up: 'I know you are but what am I'
 
2012-10-25 09:11:20 AM

gulogulo: Debeo Summa Credo: However, any of his future victims would likely not.

I love how altruistic you expect a woman to be for the 'sake of all' but cannot spare that same altruism towards a child, no matter how it was conceived.

Has anyone asked what happens if it is the woman's first child that is born of rape but the second was not? Then what?


Name one.
 
2012-10-25 09:11:57 AM

LiberalConservative: Lost Thought 00: LiberalConservative: If you stop the fraud the money saved could be used to prevent/reduce the problems that cause the poverty.

You couldn't even name 1 cause of poverty

Are you stupid? How about having children while already being on welfare.


That's not a cause, you farkwit
 
2012-10-25 09:11:58 AM

littleray42: gulogulo: Debeo Summa Credo: However, any of his future victims would likely not.

I love how altruistic you expect a woman to be for the 'sake of all' but cannot spare that same altruism towards a child, no matter how it was conceived.

Has anyone asked what happens if it is the woman's first child that is born of rape but the second was not? Then what?

Name one.


Sorry, commented on wrong post.
 
2012-10-25 09:14:17 AM
Hah! If you can't get pregnant when you're raped, what's the problem here, amirite? Clearly, if there's a child produced, then there wasn't a rape because the woman's body "knows".

Seriously though, I know this sounds horrible, but what about reducing/suspending their funding if they don't get their tubes cut. It achieves the apparent goals of this legislation without spiking a rash of false "He raped me" accusations from women that would do it just so they can continue to live, and reduces the abortions or worse, illegal abortions, of women who won't play the rape card, or refuse to take the risk of pointing out a known rapist to police while continuing to live in the rapist's neighborhood.. It'll reduce child/baby dumping, and reduce the amount of kids raised in poverty-stricken homes in neighborhoods where being a criminal seems to be the only way to survive it.

Worst part is.. if the abortion thing becomes illegal, don't think it'll stop.. it'll just stop being regulated, the horror stories we get now will be nothing compared to the horrors of abortion without restrictions in a world where having a non-rape child reduces the "income" of a family already living at poverty levels.

It might also reduce the instances of women getting killed for threatening to "claim" rape, or due to the potential of such a claim. Or perceived "entrapments" where women want the benefits of both, the assistance programs, AND various other tax benefits afforded them, and they decide to actively try to get pregnant through deception, fully planning on calling it rape.

Or, there could be a less intrusive/expensive version, perhaps something where if you have a child while on funding, you are required to put it up for adoption if you wish to continue that funding at the level you're currently receiving? Unless you are childless, at which point you are permitted to get one child without penalty.
 
2012-10-25 09:14:20 AM

Lost Thought 00: LiberalConservative: Lost Thought 00: LiberalConservative: If you stop the fraud the money saved could be used to prevent/reduce the problems that cause the poverty.

You couldn't even name 1 cause of poverty

Are you stupid? How about having children while already being on welfare.

That's not a cause, you farkwit


Not that guy but yo actually are stupid. It is the number one cause of poverty. Poverty has become generational whether you want to believe it or not.
 
2012-10-25 09:14:23 AM

littleray42: Alphax: littleray42: You are correct, but the problem is a bit more two-edged. All people on welfare are on it because they are irresponsible. I'm not saying that to be mean at all, it's just a fact. People who make better decisions don't need a handout. Those same people who irresponsible enough to need welfare are going to be irresponsible with birth control as well.

You have an interesting, fictional look on life.

Awesome. The 'huh uh' rebuttal. Next up: 'I know you are but what am I'


I don't like to mince words with fools.
 
2012-10-25 09:15:54 AM

mobile_home_refush: LiberalConservative: Alphax: SandMann: Alphax: SandMann: Big deal.

If someone is claiming a government handout they should have to prove they qualify. It doesn't matter what it is. If not, the system will be abused.

What part of 'keeping desperately poor mothers and their children from starving' is something to be abused? Afraid they might double dip and get to eat until they're not hungry?

I know people who game the system. None of them face starvation.

You'll have to do better than that.

FFS. Help the small proportion of child starvation cases by providing targeted food/money, not by willfully allowing welfare fraud/rorting by a majority who are not starving.

If they are not starving it is because the system works. We do not have children starving in the streets because we have a safety net. That $1.31 per meal per kid that we give children isn't hurting anyone. If you know people who are gaming the system and you didn't report them then you are just as bad.


And I agree with everything you just posted.
Yes the system works, and it will continue to work if committing welfare fraud by falsely declaring rape is squashed. System would probably run that little bit better for it.
 
2012-10-25 09:16:43 AM

Brostorm: Lost Thought 00: LiberalConservative: Lost Thought 00: LiberalConservative: If you stop the fraud the money saved could be used to prevent/reduce the problems that cause the poverty.

You couldn't even name 1 cause of poverty

Are you stupid? How about having children while already being on welfare.

That's not a cause, you farkwit

Not that guy but yo actually are stupid. It is the number one cause of poverty. Poverty has become generational whether you want to believe it or not.


The point that I think you're missing is that people are already in poverty if they are on welfare. Having a child on welfare does not, therefore, "cause" poverty. It's a nitpick, but that's what the words on the table are.
 
2012-10-25 09:16:45 AM
img.photobucket.com

American Taliban, how hard is it to go two weeks without mentioning or legislating rape? Just farking stop it. We get that you're terrible people and you hate women, but why the pile on right before election day? Is your God telling you to lose on purpose?
 
2012-10-25 09:17:16 AM

Genevieve Marie: david_gaithersburg: And we all know that PA is one of those states without access to abortions. Derp.


82% of counties in Pennsylvania have no abortion provider. 46% of women in Pennsylvania live in those counties. Pennsylvania also has mandated counseling designed to discourage abortion and a mandatory 24 hour waiting period.

That may sound like no big deal until you consider the fact that someone who requires welfare benefits and qualifies is already pretty desperately poor... so affording not one, but two days off of work, plus transporatation to another county and lodgings there is actually a pretty big burden on abortion access.

 Source: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/pennsylvania.html 


Gah, wish I read this before. Invalidates my "Pensylvania is not Mississippi or Texas" remark.

Ok, well then I'm okay with the bill -- as long as they amend it to (a) provide funding to provide access to contraception and abortion services within every county (b) revoke the mandated anti-abortion counseling and 24 hour wait period. And (c) add funding for rape awareness and prevention programs, counseling programs, self-defense courses and additional officer training.

How does that sound? Are we getting closer to sufficiently bi-partisan legislation?

/not a legislator
//plays one on Fark
 
2012-10-25 09:17:21 AM

MurphyMurphy: I'd foward this to the local blog everyone in my town reads, but...

I live in rube farking retards rural PA.

And they will just say something about obummer's communist conspirator huffington made it up to keep the welfare funding going to ALL the obama voters (because they know, KNOW, those are the only people that vote for him).

You can meet the nicest people going out for a beer and a pool game. You really can.
But don't mention politics unless you want to end the night killing after losing all faith in humanity.



I can second that. Nothing will make you want to GTFO of rural PA (which is most of PA) like living in rural PA. Admittedly, there is also a great deal of it in urban PA as well.
 
2012-10-25 09:18:25 AM

littleray42: littleray42: gulogulo: Debeo Summa Credo: However, any of his future victims would likely not.

I love how altruistic you expect a woman to be for the 'sake of all' but cannot spare that same altruism towards a child, no matter how it was conceived.

Has anyone asked what happens if it is the woman's first child that is born of rape but the second was not? Then what?

Name one.

Sorry, commented on wrong post.


Well, shiat, I was going to name it Sue.
 
2012-10-25 09:20:38 AM

Lost Thought 00: machoprogrammer: Republicans are retarded, but if you are already on welfare (before you get pregnant), you shouldn't get more money when you have more kids.

So children can't collect welfare? Because that's what you are claiming, that children shouldn't be allowed to collect from the basic subsistence safety nets we put in place to keep society from crumbling.

Kids are born not because their parents are trying to collect cash, but because they enjoy f*cking, just like every other human being on this planet


We need to get rid of incentives to have kids. Especially if you cannot afford them. Safety nets are great; and I am totally pro-social welfare programs, free birth control, universal healthcare (including abortions) and such. However, if you are already receiving welfare, you shouldn't get more money if you have a kid. If you have the kids (or get pregnant) before you start receiving welfare, that is another issue (bad luck happens), but once you are on it, don't have a kid.
 
2012-10-25 09:22:16 AM

LasersHurt: Brostorm: Lost Thought 00: LiberalConservative: Lost Thought 00: LiberalConservative: If you stop the fraud the money saved could be used to prevent/reduce the problems that cause the poverty.

You couldn't even name 1 cause of poverty

Are you stupid? How about having children while already being on welfare.

That's not a cause, you farkwit

Not that guy but yo actually are stupid. It is the number one cause of poverty. Poverty has become generational whether you want to believe it or not.

The point that I think you're missing is that people are already in poverty if they are on welfare. Having a child on welfare does not, therefore, "cause" poverty. It's a nitpick, but that's what the words on the table are.


Kind of a fair comment. If I had re-read more than twice before posting I may of adjusted that to "How about having children when you can't afford to support them". All square now?
 
2012-10-25 09:23:14 AM
You know, I don't think false claims of rape happen as much as people on here claim they do. I won't say how, but I know that even if you don't report it to the police, a regular old claim of "I think I was drugged and I may have been raped but I'm not sure" among friends WITHOUT naming the suspected rapist can cause your entire life to implode. Friends stop speaking to you, boyfriends dump you, and everyone you know close to you is scarred by it, because that knowledge will always be there.

I can't imagine that a majority of rape claims fall under these pretenses. So, we will punish the relatively few ..and what's worse, the children of all of them.
 
2012-10-25 09:24:12 AM

machoprogrammer: We need to get rid of incentives to have kids. Especially if you cannot afford them. Safety nets are great; and I am totally pro-social welfare programs, free birth control, universal healthcare (including abortions) and such. However, if you are already receiving welfare, you shouldn't get more money if you have a kid. If you have the kids (or get pregnant) before you start receiving welfare, that is another issue (bad luck happens), but once you are on it, don't have a kid.


At the same time, why should a child of a person on welfare be treated worse by the state than a child of someone not on welfare? What's more important, helping the child or punishing the parent?
 
2012-10-25 09:24:17 AM

LiberalConservative: LasersHurt: Brostorm: Lost Thought 00: LiberalConservative: Lost Thought 00: LiberalConservative: If you stop the fraud the money saved could be used to prevent/reduce the problems that cause the poverty.

You couldn't even name 1 cause of poverty

Are you stupid? How about having children while already being on welfare.

That's not a cause, you farkwit

Not that guy but yo actually are stupid. It is the number one cause of poverty. Poverty has become generational whether you want to believe it or not.

The point that I think you're missing is that people are already in poverty if they are on welfare. Having a child on welfare does not, therefore, "cause" poverty. It's a nitpick, but that's what the words on the table are.

Kind of a fair comment. If I had re-read more than twice before posting I may of adjusted that to "How about having children when you can't afford to support them". All square now?


Fine by me, that's a fair cop. I was being "technically correct," which is the best kind of correct, but pretty useless if you want to actually accomplish anything in discussion.
 
2012-10-25 09:25:14 AM

dready zim: Tommy Moo: Calm down, subby. I'm with the GOP here. The article doesn't say she has to prove she was raped; it says she has to prove she reported it.

If you consider yourself an environmentalist, you have to confront the fact that we are overpopulated. Too many humans is the answer to virtually every economic, environmental, and social issue facing the 21st century. Now, it would be nice to fix the problem with unicorn farts and pixie dust, but in practice, the only way to slow population growth is to pass measures with financial teeth, such as refusing to give people more money for having more kids, whether that be through TANF or through tax deductions for the middle class. If we make parents confront the true cost of raising children and seriously police immigration, the population in this country will begin to decrease, as it desperately needs to.

There should be parent benefit, not child benefit. Each parent living with a child gets benefit. If two parents live with their child then they get twice as much. If you have lots of kids you will have to share it out. This would lead to lots of people on benefits being better off financially if both parents live with just one child. Two children should be affordable and three should be a struggle but just manageable.

It`s like those really really fat people, you don`t get like that without an enabler...


I would be perfectly comfortable with that solution. Also acceptable would be something that increases TANF across the board and lowers middle class taxes across the board while simultaneously eliminating added benefits for having children, so that the two cancel each other out and no one with two or fewer children is doing worse overall.
 
2012-10-25 09:27:13 AM

Lost Thought 00: machoprogrammer: We need to get rid of incentives to have kids. Especially if you cannot afford them. Safety nets are great; and I am totally pro-social welfare programs, free birth control, universal healthcare (including abortions) and such. However, if you are already receiving welfare, you shouldn't get more money if you have a kid. If you have the kids (or get pregnant) before you start receiving welfare, that is another issue (bad luck happens), but once you are on it, don't have a kid.

At the same time, why should a child of a person on welfare be treated worse by the state than a child of someone not on welfare? What's more important, helping the child or punishing the parent?


I will agree with this as soon as you can name an of any change that you would not see as hurting the child.
 
2012-10-25 09:28:35 AM

geek_mars: Tommy Moo: Calm down, subby. I'm with the GOP here. The article doesn't say she has to prove she was raped; it says she has to prove she reported it.

If you consider yourself an environmentalist, you have to confront the fact that we are overpopulated. Too many humans is the answer to virtually every economic, environmental, and social issue facing the 21st century. Now, it would be nice to fix the problem with unicorn farts and pixie dust, but in practice, the only way to slow population growth is to pass measures with financial teeth, such as refusing to give people more money for having more kids, whether that be through TANF or through tax deductions for the middle class. If we make parents confront the true cost of raising children and seriously police immigration, the population in this country will begin to decrease, as it desperately needs to.

Overpopulation is a global problem. Reducing the U.S. population, especially through anti-immigration measures, won't have much of an impact on that.

Let me say it again, for anyone who may have missed it. While fraud is a problem to be addressed, punishing the child for the poor choices of its parent is hardly a satisfactory solution. Anyone who can't look a child in the eye and say, "Sorry kid, I can't help feed you because your mother should never have had you," needs to stop advocating for things like "financial teeth" as a means to confront the issue of people on assistance making poor choices about family planning.


1) Because people in America consume much more resources than people in other countries, overpopulation here counts four times as much as overpopulation globally
2) Anti-immigration measures would have an impact on global overpopulation. When other countries take for granted that they can scrape their excess people off into the United States, they have little incentive to promote family planning policies. If, to use the best example, Mexico were forced to find a way to provide food, housing, and jobs for every person who were born there, the Mexican government would quickly be forced to make birth control and abortion more accessible.
 
Displayed 50 of 474 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report