Posted on 07/29/2011 7:37:42 AM PDT by econjack
Then the crybabies hammered on about how mean it was for "us" to make these poor people's decisions about their foods, let's just give them a way to go to the store and pick out their own - the Feminazis screamed about "making women cook!!!"
As to getting women on pills or devices to prevent pregnancy, that's the Eugenists old saw like PP founder and other Fascists were demanding, China's one child only policy and forced abortions resulted. The government has shown us the way on this: if you want more of it - give it away; if you want less - don't subsidize. Quit offering women and girls money for making babies, force families to support them - or not, but no more money for a baby and you'll get less.
NJ proved it under the '96 Welfare Reform Act, they were giving moms more money per child up to that point, then said "you'll get $$ for one child, no more - period." Birth rates among welfare moms dropped significantly once they learned that they'd be making do for all children on the $$ they got for one. Even welfare moms can add - more babies, more money; more babies, less money. NJ welfare rolls dropped! (0f course, today, gov't food stamps advertises with our money for more "clients!")
But then again, I'm not - nor have I ever been - dependent on the taxpayer's dime.
The taxpayers aren't either.
Inclement weather in SA?
a tad extreme?
nah... they might not go far enough.
being dependent on government needs to be uncomfortable.
Unfortunately that’s not true. There are many wards of the state, and if their parents are wards, then the children are as well.
Sounds reasonable to me...what about illegals
They want air conditioned "smoking huts". It's too hot to smoke outside. They feel their rights as public housing recipients are being violated.
“I am for doing good to the poor, but…I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed…that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
—Benjamin Franklin
Your link has nothing to do with this story.
They can do without.
I was trying to imply that their parents are the responsible parties. If those parents are on welfare and bring a child into the world, then they should receive no additional funding from the taxpayer - because the taxpayer is not responsible.
WEre you aware that California welfare credit cards (I think 2009) $11.9 million dollars were spent at Casinos and cruises? $69 million was spent in 40 states other than California.
Sickening.
I meant 49 other states (Geeze, I am as bad as the O in counting states)
FECKLESS FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!
I wouldn’t have a problem with a reduction in the stipend. I don’t want a stipend to be tied to the number, because that’s essentially population control. All the children should receive the same amount.
Yes, all children should receive the same amount: ZERO!
When Joe and Jane worker have a baby, they must live within their means - their current salaries.
Same with Joe and Jane deadbeat, who both receive X amount because they are "poor". Having a child should not raise their initial draw by one red cent. They should live within the means that Joe and Jane worker are providing for them.
I see nothing extreme about this proposal. At this late date, it will require extreme actions to reverse 50 years of Liberal destruction to every aspect of this country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.