A modest proposal #2?

Question

I have no problem with my tax dollars going to support those in need. In fact I think that public assistance is a good thing under certain circumstances. But why should we pay for more of them, would it be some kind of human rights violation to say "before you can have a government check you have to get a Norplant (or something similar) implanted" That way we don't subsidize large welfare families.

Answer 1

hmmm, then next week let's propose genetic engineering..

That was meant to be sarcastic, but not serious..

Public assistance needs to be controlled more by requiring contribution. In other words, you're either working at a job, or doing labor for a government agency, no work, no money.

I think requiring at least minimal work and learning by someone on Public Assistance would allieviate most of those issues. If you had to pack up the kids, go to the government office, and spend 4 hours every other day, answering phones, cleaning carpets, stuffing envelopes, etc.. You'd be doing more to change the situation than birth control. People quickly learn to modify behavior if you change the benefits and the pain points.

There are exceptions to that, some people are not able physically or mentally to work, and shoud receive public assistance without those constraints, but in large, it should be a "no work, no money" environment.

Answer 2

I agree to a point...
What about those who only have one child and are just having a hardship point in their life which needs government assistance........and someday want to have more children? Should they be "punished" for needed emergency help?
...also...it does cost $ also to provide services to these families who use welfare to survive other than food and shelter...like "Norplant" or tubal ligation, or vasectomy, the "pill"...these procedures alone would probably hike up our tax dollars or health insurance dues because those services need to be paid for..somehow...so in the long run would more than likely cost us more... than providing food stamps..(as there really is an abundance of food in this country to be eaten, so it costs lees to provide food to needy families than expensive medical procedures).......there are tons of other factors that weigh in but, for the most part I believe this is true.

Answer 3

No apart from the obvious human right questions the children who may have been born might thermselves grow up to pay tax and make a contribution just because their parents are on welfare doesn't mean that they will be.

Answer 4

If one examines the percentage of the federal budget spent on welfare programs, one finds that less than 5% of the annual budget is spent on welfare. It is a violation of one civil right to impose a restriction on the number of children one can have regardless of the logical aspect of the argument.

Answer 5

I agree with you 100% the people that need help can not get it like our elderly, but the lazy bums that just will not work can get everything. there is something wrong with the way things are set up it needs to be readjusted. for those that really need help.

Answer 6

That would be nice, but I think it goes against their civil rights or freedom to breed or some such nonsense.