WC's Extreme Views

[Winehole23]

say they take the money and fail to report for surgery. what happens then?

[Wild Cobra]

If you understood the posts it is just possible I was not drunk enough yet.

LOL...

Maybe I didn't have enough. By the time I read them, I only had two tall Three Olives Grape mixed with V-8 Fusion Cranberry/Blackberry.

[Wild Cobra]

say they take the money and fail to report for surgery. what happens then?

I'm not going to try to work out all the details. I'm only focusing on the broader picture. I think the best thing would be to schedule the surgery as quick as possible, then if they miss the appointment, suspend government aide until they follow through.

On my first Vodka/Fusion mix now.

[Winehole23]

that's for people who don't like booze imho. however, pick yer poison.

[Winehole23]

I'm not going to try to work out all the details.

not interested in your own idea anymore? what a shame.

[Winehole23]

Good.

I got you to admit you intentionally provoke people.

What good does that do in discussions?

leads to truth, you suggested elsewhere. change your tune much?

[Winehole23]

when you are provocative, consciousness is being raised. when we do it, it is petty partisan sniping.

(retires in sackcloth and ashes)

[Wild Cobra]

I don't see where that is so difficult, except there will be some shades of gray. Few things are black and white. Would you agree a couple, where neither is working, maybe both living with their parents, would be irresponsible to conceive a child? How about a couple that works, but has very little money after paying rent, utilities, etc. It comes down to finances. It comes down to if government assistance is asked for or not. If it's asked for, then what has changed since the conception would be used to show if they qualify or not for the aid without the strings attached.

Don't ask me to try to come up with the thousands of possible qualifiers.

If it's not so difficult, then why there's "thousands of possible qualifiers"?
Just tell me what the criteria is. I doubt government will ins ute a program where there's "thousands of possible qualifiers". There's probably some guidelines, unless you're saying it should be entirely arbitrary.

The trigger to see if a couple should be required to have surgery would be the request for government aide. If nothing changed from when they conceived, to when they asked for assistance, then I see that as an automatic denial of assistance unless they opt to have the surgery. I only say thousands because I an not trying to look at all possible mitigating cir stances. however, if one or both had jobs and their income could have provided the necessary income, then a layoff occurred, this would be reason to treat the handout as a safety net, and not require surgery for the handout. i don't see much need to work out all the reasons unless there is ever serious talk about such a system.

I definitely do not agree with the examples you provided as examples of "irresponsible". If anything, I want to hear why they don't have jobs, and I much rather the government aids them getting a job than requiring them to undergo surgery, which won't make them any more productive to society.

If they didn't have jobs when they conceived, then they are irresponsible. I see no way to argue otherwise on that. Please enlighten me.

Why are you pushing to the extreme? Isn't my answer good enough that I believe in the safety net system? Is someone being irresponsible if they were an adequate provider, then suddenly gets laid off of work?

But wouldn't that person fit in your exception criteria?

Yes. That is why you are extreme if you advocate to cut everyone off.

The temporary dire straits part? So that person doesn't have a problem. We're obviously talking about those that would qualify within your "irresponsible" definition.
If you feel they're just abusing the system, why do you think they should be rewarded with aid?

The aide comes with the sterilization, to help make certain it's a one time event. If they can't have children again, it can't happen again. Right?

Heck, let's do a middle-ground solution and only give them half. When there's not enough money in your house, you adjust to the reality of the situation, right? Why don't just do the same in this case? If there's so many irresponsible out there, this would be huge savings, right?

You mean like making the family have only half servings for an innocent child they shouldn't of had?

And if they can't find a job, or charity resources are running low? If you are advocating cutting them off 100% without an option, I could call you the extreme one, you know. I want to promote using charitable resources first. However, if there is nothing else to be found, why do you advocate no help at all from the government? My intent is to dramatically downsize the social spending. Not eliminate it. When we find better solutions in the future, maybe that can become a worthy goal.

If they can't find anything, you provide the aid while you help them find something so they can be productive again.

That's fine. i don't have a problem with job assistance programs. Still, they are being irresponsible if the conceive a child before they can afford to have one. This should be a step they take before having a child Not after.

You still haven't explained how requiring them to have a surgery "dramatically downsize the social spending". It doesn't force them to go out there and get a job.

I would think that's obvious.

Why isn't it clear? Can't you do basic financial math, projecting future costs of a lifestyle change?

If everybody could predict their financial future, then nobody would have financial problems, thus this whole re ed idea wouldn't exist in the first place. There's no certainties when it comes to the future. And going through a pregnancy and raising a child is a matter of years, not weeks or just months.

I'm not talking about long term changes. I'm talking about if their current income is enough to support a new baby in the equation.

So you support pedophiles, polygamy, incest, etc?

do you think the only reason those things are outlawed are just moral?
There's both medical and contractual reasons why those things are outlawed.

And some people would say raising a child in poverty is child abuse. Why is my idea so different then?

Most people will disagree with where a law should start and end. However, I'm not talking about regulating morality. I'm talking about holding people accountable for their level of responsibility. I am only advocating this because of the tax burden it places on tax payers. This is the only time a libertarian has the right to desire some kind of government intervention. When it affects the responsible people. Libertarianism only works when you maintain a society where people are accountable for their actions.

How does a surgery requirement holds people accountable? How does it incentive people to get a job, out of welfare and being productive members of society? Doesn't it actually works the other way around? It would deny society of potentially productive members.

I can't believe you are asking such a thing. People would know that it will not be an easy path should they deviate from some expected responsibility standards. It will be a deterrent to some, or many. Now I'm not going to attempt to quantify how many, but I say it would be foolish to say it would make no change in peoples actions.

How many people live in poverty, as a cycle? I think it's crazy to ask for such a thing. You can look up food stamp statistics, WIC program statistics, Earned Income Credit statistics, etc. as easily as anyone. We probably have between 40% to 48% of our population being subsidized by the rest. I make that claim because it is 48% if income tax filers that either pay no federal income tax, or get money from others in tax credits.

Sounds like that's a problem with the tax code. Or you're seriously advocating that 40% to 48% people undergo crippling surgery?
Isn't that going to hurt the country more in the long term?

I'm not presenting this as an ex-post... whatever law. Please don't try to frame it as such. I want to see those statistics change.

BTW, about 40 million people received foodstamps assistance in 2010, and that's largely due to the recession. That's about 13% of the population, and includes everyone, those that require temporarily and those that might not. Perhaps the problem isn't as bad or widespread as you think it is.

And do you think it's a responsible action for any of them to conceive while in such an income status to receive food stamps?

Ultimately what's going to to reduce social spending is when the people that can work get back to work and off welfare. Surgery is not making them work.

I agree we need to put people back to work, but i disagree with your assessment that surgery won't matter.

Isn't it logical that a simple operation is cheaper than the statistical amount paid?

No it's not. Because it isn't just a simple operation. You're also not adding the potential contributions from one or more future workers and taxpayers. Those unborn kids are definitely not going to be working, paying their taxes, and benefiting society.

Statistically, those kids will be more collecting welfare rather than being net tax payers.

This is more about economics. Since the welfare system started in the 60's it has become larger than military spending. A cycle of dependency has developed. Children growing up under these systems don't see parents working as role models, so yes, it is about society too. With single unwed mothers, children see their mothers collecting food stamps, sometimes receiving child support, often the mother isn't working, and it's what they see as a lifestyle.

Can you back that up? Programs like WIC only last as long as the kids are 5 years old and only as long as your income is below a certain level. There's been laws since at least 1996 that prevent women from staying indefinitely on welfare.

Start looking at your surroundings more carefully. How many single women do you see these days with several children about 3 years apart in age?

Do you realize that Reagan's "Welfare Queen" tale was fictional, right?

I don't even know that story.

We need to turn the wheels back to the 50's way of thinking when it comes to responsibility. Our society as a whole has so little responsibility, it's ridiculous. If we want to see a better future for our kids, we need to try to change what is wrong.

It's a completely different world. Back then we had a manufacturing nation. After the war the economy was fairly stable and growing. The federal government was not in charge of welfare at all, it was the states that took care of that. The US population was half of what it is today.

So your answer is allow more illegal immigration driving wages down farther, as an excuse that people don't have jobs?

I'm not against reducing some costs, trimming bureaucracy and going after those that abuse the system. I don't think mass vasectomies will solve that problem. As a matter of fact, mass vasectomies will likely ensure that the better future will only see less kids.

Is less children growing up under welfare a bad thing?

[Wild Cobra]

that's for people who don't like booze imho. however, pick yer poison.

That's me. I prefer beer, but my girlfriend likes the stuff so I keep some around. It makes a very smooth drink with no hangover, so I will drink it now and then.

[Winehole23]

srsly, whatever works for you. don't listen to some other jackass. only you know how adventurous you are.

[Wild Cobra]

srsly, whatever works for you. don't listen to some other jackass. only you know how adventurous you are.

I get hangovers easy, so when I find something that doesn't give me one... I will endorse it.

[ElNono]

say they take the money and fail to report for surgery. what happens then?

Wait, people that don't make enough to make ends meet have to come up with money for the surgery? I thought government paid for that as part of the aid.

If that's the case, how is this different from denying the aid from the get go?

[Winehole23]

crossed wire, maybe.

What I imagined is this: the government pays for the surgery. I presumed also that the consultation might take a little time, and taking this time, along with whatever upfront money is provided, persons of low station and dubious worth to society might make good their escape.

My question was: in such state of affairs, what measures to force compliance lie at hand for the government?

[Winehole23]

even if no upfront money is given, people will seek to avoid the surgery.

[clambake]

Well, he claims to have a nice Mercedes.

Clambake...

How much did you say your oil changes cost?

i never said i have a nice mercedes.

[clambake]

by the way, it cost around $115.00 just for the appointment.

[EVAY]

How is it possible that people who self-identify as 'small government' conservatives have no problem suggesting something (like sterilization in exchange for assistance) that has to be the MOST intrusive governmental action imaginable?

Seems to me that Obamacare's requirement for purchasing insurance is NOTHING compared to this suggestion.

[Winehole23]

How is it possible that people who self-identify as 'small government' conservatives have no problem suggesting something (like sterilization in exchange for assistance) that has to be the MOST intrusive governmental action imaginable?

agree 100%.

this appears to be a blind spot. my quip about writing white papers on big government solutions for pressing social ills, was aimed in this general direction.

Seems to me that Obamacare's requirement for purchasing insurance is NOTHING compared to this suggestion.

agree, sort of. if the health insurance mandate is not extreme, it is still radical in the ordinary sense of the word.

[Winehole23]

the ACA creates the burden of individual participation in the healthcare insurance market. for the USA, this is a fairly radical step.

/derail

[Winehole23]

What prevents people from sterilizing, then using the money to do the reversal, have another kid, and sterilize again?

(shivers)

since you pointed it out, there's a good chance WC will stipulate that can't happen.

[ElNono]

The trigger to see if a couple should be required to have surgery would be the request for government aide. If nothing changed from when they conceived, to when they asked for assistance, then I see that as an automatic denial of assistance unless they opt to have the surgery. I only say thousands because I an not trying to look at all possible mitigating cir stances. however, if one or both had jobs and their income could have provided the necessary income, then a layoff occurred, this would be reason to treat the handout as a safety net, and not require surgery for the handout. i don't see much need to work out all the reasons unless there is ever serious talk about such a system.

I just think you've given no thought to how this system is supposed to work at all. To compound the problem, you don't know what the current system provides and under which cir stances. Programs like WIC only apply on a temporary basis and start when the women gets pregnant. Are you seriously advocating the mother undergo a tied tube surgery with the kid in the womb?
BTW, assistance isn't requested only by "couples". Plenty of single mothers out there. And plenty of people that do have jobs but still don't make enough not to require assistance.

If they didn't have jobs when they conceived, then they are irresponsible. I see no way to argue otherwise on that. Please enlighten me.

Are you advocating that people should stop having sex while unemployed?
You say that like every kid conceived is planned for. Until there's a 100% foolproof method to prevent conception, your claim is simply not true.

Yes. That is why you are extreme if you advocate to cut everyone off.

But I didn't claim that. I said only those that fit *your* criteria (still far from clear) for having the surgery, which according to you are being "irresponsible". Why do you want to reward them with aid instead of teaching them to be "responsible"?

The aide comes with the sterilization, to help make certain it's a one time event. If they can't have children again, it can't happen again. Right?

But you don't know it's a one time event. The surgery is reversible, right?
I'll take it one step further. What if the person gets out of welfare, decides to have another kid (seemingly "responsibly" this time), but the reversal doesn't work? Tough luck? You don't think the government would have any sort of liability to requiring her to have such surgery in the first place (something the person wouldn't have done unless required to do so)?

Tangentially, how is this different from requiring people to have health insurance (or pay a penalty)? Didn't you think that was a draconian, authoritarian government requirement?

You mean like making the family have only half servings for an innocent child they shouldn't of had?

Well, tell me what a "responsible" person like you do when you can't make ends meet. Do you continue with your same lifestyle?

That's fine. i don't have a problem with job assistance programs. Still, they are being irresponsible if the conceive a child before they can afford to have one. This should be a step they take before having a child Not after.

Well, I certainly don't agree that people choose to do that all the time. It's obviously quite difficult to prove otherwise. Perhaps we should require them to bring the broken, used condom or the used intro-uterine device to the interview?

I would think that's obvious.

Clearly it isn't. So start explaining how having the surgery "dramatically downsize the social spending".

I'm not talking about long term changes. I'm talking about if their current income is enough to support a new baby in the equation.

Well, we need to talk about long term changes, because we're talking about human life here, which is nothing but long-term. Frankly, your proposal reeks of short-sighted, something I pointed out numerous times now.

And some people would say raising a child in poverty is child abuse. Why is my idea so different then?

We already have programs that address that, like WIC, CPS, we do not?
How is the surgery requirement going to make bad parents into good parents?
Right, it won't.

I can't believe you are asking such a thing. People would know that it will not be an easy path should they deviate from some expected responsibility standards. It will be a deterrent to some, or many. Now I'm not going to attempt to quantify how many, but I say it would be foolish to say it would make no change in peoples actions.

What kind of authority do you think the government has to dictate what these "responsibility standards" should be? What happens when they dictate some "standard" you don't agree with?

And you didn't answer any of my questions, so I'm going to ask them again: How does a surgery requirement holds people accountable? How does it incentive people to get a job, out of welfare and being productive members of society? Doesn't it actually works the other way around? It would deny society of potentially productive members.

I'm not presenting this as an ex-post... whatever law. Please don't try to frame it as such. I want to see those statistics change.

I think what's wrong with the tax code is material for another thread, so I'll leave it there.

And do you think it's a responsible action for any of them to conceive while in such an income status to receive food stamps?

How do you know they intended to conceive in the first place?

I would add there's some age-related instances where I definitely understand why they would try to conceive.

I agree we need to put people back to work, but i disagree with your assessment that surgery won't matter.

So how is the surgery putting them back to work?

Statistically, those kids will be more collecting welfare rather than being net tax payers.

Where are these statistics? I've been asking you to back all this asinine sentences, but all you've been able to say so far is "look around you". I'm not taking your word for it. I posted actual statistics.

Start looking at your surroundings more carefully. How many single women do you see these days with several children about 3 years apart in age?

Your perception means . You should start getting informed, so you can make informed comments. A good start would be Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act

I don't even know that story.

You seem to be aware enough of to comment on it

So your answer is allow more illegal immigration driving wages down farther, as an excuse that people don't have jobs?

Did I mention illegal immigration *at all*???? Lest we forget that the economy is in the ter because some rich folk decided to gamble money they didn't have, and then proceeded to ask the government for the same welfare you're ing about?

My point stands though. We're not going back to the 50's because neither this nation or the world are what they used to be back then. A surgery requirement won't change that.

Is less children growing up under welfare a bad thing?

You still have to actually back up the contention that those children are going to be perennially living under welfare and won't become productive members of society.

[Winehole23]

persons of low station and dubious worth to society

and we all know worthy people are never born to such

[FromWayDowntown]

The sterilization thing would seem to have proven its extremist bona fides (again).

[ElNono]

It's bad enough that women in general are only fertile for a little over 1/4 of their life. One would think that looking through that fact alone, the conclusion that such women live indefinitely on welfare through chain childbirth is nothing but a big canard.

[Wild Cobra]

Wait, people that don't make enough to make ends meet have to come up with money for the surgery? I thought government paid for that as part of the aid.

If that's the case, how is this different from denying the aid from the get go?

I know I included somewhere that it's cheaper for the government to pay for the tube tying than paying for round 2 of child expenses.