Since we probably can't end the welfare state...

[VBRonPaulFan]

Given the old adage about...

"Democracies only last until the voting public realizes they can vote themselves gifts from the public treasury"

I'm surprised I'm not getting more support for the restriction of voting privelege. What reforms would you suggest to make politicians not pander to the welfare vote. Most of the Democratic party's "Rock the Vote" campaigns are specifically targeted toward getting more welfare sucking people to come out and vote. Indeed, Obama counted on it.

I just believe you need to think long and hard before you set a precedent where you can strike away a citizens voting right... slippery slope argument and all that.

 

[Icymudpuppy]

I just believe you need to think long and hard before you set a precedent where you can strike away a citizens voting right... slippery slope argument and all that.

Voting has never been a right. Always a privelege. Our founders based voting on being landowners. Renters, slaves, women, and persons under 21 could not vote.

Universal suffrage is not a good thing for freedom.

 

[Monarchist]

Universal suffrage is not a good thing for freedom.

Suffrage isn't a good thing for freedom, period.

 

[erowe1]

I don't accept the premise of the question.

If something can't last forever, it won't.

 

[MelissaWV]

Well, the immediate result might be that people who are afraid to take the necessary birth control simply don't get a check.

Recipient: "I've come to get my welfare check"
Clerk: "Please take this pill."
Recipient: "I ain't takin your damn pill".
Clerk: "Very well, you may try again next week".

I don't think you understand, or are trying to be deliberately obtuse on the subject.

Serious as well as minor side effects have been reported with the use of oral contraceptives. Serious risks, which can be life threatening, include blood clots, stroke and heart attacks, and are increased if you smoke cigarettes. Cigarette smoking increases the risk of serious cardiovascular side effects, especially if you are over 35. Women who use oral contraceptives are strongly advised not to smoke. Some women should not use the Pill, including women who have blood clots, certain cancers, a history of heart attack or stroke, as well as those who are or may be pregnant.

Bradykinin lowers blood pressure by causing blood vessel dilation. Certain enzymes are capable of breaking down bradykinin ( Angiotensin Converting Enzyme, Aminopeptidase P). Progesterone can increase the levels of Aminopeptidase P (AP-P), thereby increasing the breakdown of bradykinin, which increases the chance of developing hypertension.

Other side effects associated with low-dose COCPs are leukorrhea (increased vaginal secretions), reductions in menstrual flow, mastalgia (breast tenderness), increase in breast size, and decrease in acne. Side effects associated with older high-dose COCPs include nausea, vomiting, increases in blood pressure, and melasma (facial skin discoloration); these effects are not strongly associated with low-dose formulations. Excess estrogen, such as from birth control pills, appears to increase cholesterol levels in bile and decrease gallbladder movement, which can lead to gallstones.

Oral contraceptives may influence coagulation, increasing the risk of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism, stroke and myocardial infarction (heart attack). Combined oral contraceptives are generally accepted to be contraindicated in women with pre-existing cardiovascular disease, in women who have a familial tendency to form blood clots (such as familial factor V Leiden), women with severe obesity and/or hypercholesterolemia (high cholesterol level)...

You seem to have this odd idea that popping a birth control pill is harmless.

There is also a vulgar disconnect with propping up one family of drugs, while denouncing another. You must be on drugs to get welfare... just the kind of drugs we say you should be.

 

[Icymudpuppy]

I don't accept the premise of the question.

If something can't last forever, it won't.

I'm trying to rescue the country without a SHTF collapse. I know that there are many on here who are trying to accellerate the collapse.

 

[Icymudpuppy]

I don't think you understand, or are trying to be deliberately obtuse on the subject.

And, I never suggested forcing people to take them. Only that they have a choice. No Pill, No Money, or Pill and Money.

I thought pills would be nicer than surgical sterilization.

 

[MelissaWV]

And, I never suggested forcing people to take them. Only that they have a choice. No Pill, No Money, or Pill and Money.

I thought pills would be nicer than surgical sterilization.

Either welfare is operated on the premise of assisting those who are down on their luck, or it isn't. If it's your premise that assistance should only be handed out to those you want to harm, why not go the distance and use them for medical experiments instead of punishing them for precrime? Not being on the pill =/= unwanted pregnancies being added to welfare roles.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I'm trying to rescue the country without a SHTF collapse.

Marching westward on an eastbound ship...

 

[Icymudpuppy]

Either welfare is operated on the premise of assisting those who are down on their luck, or it isn't. If it's your premise that assistance should only be handed out to those you want to harm, why not go the distance and use them for medical experiments instead of punishing them for precrime? Not being on the pill =/= unwanted pregnancies being added to welfare roles.

Welfare is theft. Theft from me. So they are harming me. Punishment for harming me is certainly justifiable. Being out of work for a short term is what Unemployment insurance benefits are all about.

I have never been out of work for longer than 5 hours since I took my first job as a newspaper carrier at the age of 10. I have been willing to work 2 jobs for less than minimum wage well below my education level to support myself and those who depend on me. I have no respect for the mostly lazy SOBs who don't get off their asses and get a job, any job, to support themselves. I support natural selection for those people. IE: Death to the Unfit.

 

[MelissaWV]

Welfare is theft. Theft from me. So they are harming me. Punishment for harming me is certainly justifiable. Being out of work for a short term is what Unemployment insurance benefits are all about.

I have never been out of work for longer than 5 hours since I took my first job as a newspaper carrier at the age of 10. I have been willing to work 2 jobs for less than minimum wage well below my education level to support myself and those who depend on me. I have no respect for the mostly lazy SOBs who don't get off their asses and get a job, any job, to support themselves. I support natural selection for those people. IE: Death to the Unfit.

Yes, but you created the entire thread under the guise of making welfare less harmful since we need to have it around, since it's "too unrealistic" to get rid of it entirely. Instead, what you've decided is more realistic is to poison those who're on welfare.

 

[Icymudpuppy]

Yes, but you created the entire thread under the guise of making welfare less harmful since we need to have it around, since it's "too unrealistic" to get rid of it entirely. Instead, what you've decided is more realistic is to poison those who're on welfare.

No, to wean them off of it by making being on welfare very distasteful.

Ending it outright will never pass. We have to make it distasteful enough that it will become a smaller problem by the people who would take it to boycott it and find other ways to get money.

 

[MelissaWV]

No, to wean them off of it by making being on welfare very distasteful.

What makes you think that's more realistic, precisely, than just ridding ourselves of welfare altogether? And do you not see what a ridiculously bad precedent that sets on all your original points, which I talked about and you didn't really refute... other than to say I wasn't being constructive?

 

[Icymudpuppy]

What makes you think that's more realistic, precisely, than just ridding ourselves of welfare altogether? And do you not see what a ridiculously bad precedent that sets on all your original points, which I talked about and you didn't really refute... other than to say I wasn't being constructive?

Because the democrats would never let a complete repeal pass. But reform can pass.

I know that my reforms are still too harsh for the libs, so I'm looking for ways to make the reforms palatable enough that they could be supported. I have determined that my birth control pill idea is not feasible already by the poll results, but I will be creating another poll option regarding the take your check or take your child as one, and your regressive option.

Could you perhaps go into detail on how your regressive program would work?

 

[Icymudpuppy]

Marching westward on an eastbound ship...

No. Trying my best to get control of the helm so we can turn the ship around.

 

[MelissaWV]

Because the democrats would never let a complete repeal pass. But reform can pass.

I know that my reforms are still too harsh for the libs, so I'm looking for ways to make the reforms palatable enough that they could be supported. I have determined that my birth control pill idea is not feasible already by the poll results, but I will be creating another poll option regarding the take your check or take your child as one, and your regressive option.

Could you perhaps go into detail on how your regressive program would work?

The bad part about reforms is that you have to think like the majority, or at very least like the legislators and the media.

Very simply, for each additional child you have, the additional money becomes less.

If you got $5 for your first child, the second is only worth $4 and the third is worth $3 and so on, until you are just making that same teeny money (let's say a quarter) for each additional child. In other words, times get tougher with each subsequent child. If you're on welfare and you have no children, that would (to us on the forums) be worth a bonus, but what ends up happening is that you get the public telling you that you hate "the children" and are punishing them for their parents' mistakes.

As far as bonuses for being on birth control, or getting your tubes tied, I don't think the Government should get involved in the business of requiring pharmaceuticals before providing services, or proposing surgeries for dollars. I don't mind if private charities do, but they should be prepared for the massive liability they are undertaking.

* * *

Of all the programs out there, by the way, I think WIC is the least of anyone's troubles. It could be run just as well by non-Governmental agencies, but among Government programs it has far less wiggle room and chance for waste than the others. Store systems don't let you get something that's not right there on the check. We used to have a lady who would screech and complain that wine coolers were just the same as fruit juice but the system would not let it be rung up as such. It also has the added benefit, then, of being child-related food rather than money the parents can spend on themselves and food they prefer.

 

[libertybrewcity]

I think this is a great thread. Although I don't agree with all of your proposals, I do think that welfare should not be a free pass for everyone.

In many places, if a welfare recipient has a child, they automatically get a few hundred dollars more. This is an incentive for recipients to have more children, thus perpetuating the poverty cycle.

Mandatory birth control would be a very expensive program, and not very practical because most birth control is a daily pill.

Where I am from we have lots of low income housing, but if you screw up and get in trouble in any way you are kicked out of the housing. They should have this for welfare recipients. If you are taking government money and you get in trouble, you should not be able to receive money.

I am more optimistic about eliminating the welfare state, but in the meantime government can absolutely try to be "good".

I also think that cutting off welfare at a certain time should be enacted. Let's say you receive a 400 dollar check each month. Every month the government should withhold 5 dollars from that check, so you would eventually receive nothing. As your check starts slimming down and you can't keep your "lifestyle", whatever that may be, you will be forced to think about working.

And of course, we need to end the drug war.

 

[Icymudpuppy]

New proposals to be added to tomorrow's poll...

Regressive child option.
Regressive time option.
All or nothing child option
Time limit cut off option.
Random drug testing as opposed to mandatory.
Contractual basis for benefits with a loss of all benefits for breach of contract.
Citizen only will remain unless clarifications are proposed.

Looking for other options to curtail welfare recipients voting for more welfare programs since a complete restriction of all voting priveleges is apparently too unpalatable.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Looking for other options to curtail welfare recipients voting for more welfare programs since a complete restriction of all voting priveleges is apparently too unpalatable.

I'm all for that idea.

Voting is too "permissive" as it stands right now.

If you are employed by or receiving a benefit from government you should not be allowed to vote.

I'd be in favor a mandatory voting test as well.

 

[Au-H2O]

I think welfare recepients should be severely limited on the type of purchases they can make. If you want free money from someone else, you better be at least cutting back to the bare essentials. You want to buy a new car or a new tv? Get off of welfare, save your own money and buy it yourself. You want a new car AND welfare checks? Tough shit.