Birth Control for Welfare Recipients?

Is that to supplement the black babies aborted by Planned Parenthood?

 

Poverty is a relative term, and as such, can never be conceptually eliminated. But it is well within the capabilities of any developed society to (a) reduce the chasm which presently exists between the wealthy and the impoverished (as defined by that society), and (b) provide relief for those living in this relative state of poverty.

Wealth represents resources, and as such, makes the economic cycle a zero sum game. Of course it is easy to print more money, or to revalue a nation's currency, but what is not so malleable is the reserve of resources which that currency represents. Development, and the creation of wealth, is limited by the quantum of the earth's resources available to the individual or the nation concerned.

It therefore follows that if a disproportionate amount of the earth's resources, including the human effort involved in production, is allocated to one sector, other sectors will suffer shortages. An extreme example of this being that if the whims of fat children in the USA, or Europe, are indulged without restraint, then children elsewhere (or even in the USA or Europe) are more likely to starve. If corporate chiefs, tennis players, footballers, and rock stars are paid in the millions annually, it means there is insufficient left to pay the workers sufficient to avoid the brink of poverty.

So the problems developed society suffers from do not devolve about people on welfare getting too much, they devolve about a lack of moderation in the way society is organised. We are prepared to spend billions bombing brown people on the other side of the world back to the stone age, but we get our knickers in a knot about some impoverished mother having too many children. One of whom could concievably grow up to save your life, or the lives of your children.

 

Where do we draw the line though?
The mentally retarded? What grade of retardation?
The infirm, i.e. a paraplegic?
Those with mental disorders, i.e. bipolar. who refuse to medicate?
The poor?
The prostitute who turns tricks for drugs and leaves her kids alone while doing so?
Who are we to say what enjoying intimacy means? Doesn't it mean different things for everyone?
Aren't many people so uneducated, they still believe that
i.e.
kissing leads to pregnancy
you can't get pregnant while nursing...are just a few examples.
Should we give our a test before sex, to see who is aware of the consequences, and who isn't?
How much shall we interfere into someone's life?
Perhaps some of the mentally retarded couldn't take care of their offspring, but I know plenty who make better and more loving parents than some 'normal' people, and have much needed family support behind them as well.

 

Granny says dat a good idea...

... `cause den Uncle Ferd won't have to worry `bout any o' his fat g/f's gettin' p.g.

... an' she won't have to worry `bout any dem lil' chubby buddies gettin' under foot.

 

What are the causes of poverty?

Some are physically incapable, due to chronic illness, or debilitating handicap (there are non-debilitating handicaps) to earn an income. (Those that can't work due to age, did have 40+ years to save for retirement)

Some are intellectually incapable, physically OK, but can't be educated to the level required for employment.

Some are intellectually and physically capable, but don't have the education required for employment. Why, when our tax dollars provides free K-12, and very low cost Communitie colleges. What more can government do to assure an education?

Some are psychologically incapable, their minds aren't capable of functioning well enough to find a job. The government used to house this category, but stopped because the term "snake pit" fit too well.

The government has tried to provide for the poor with low cost housing, the "projects". That hasn't been very successful.

Some are poor temporarily. If they are on unemployment, they loose it if they go to school to learn another trade. If they are on welfare, the benefits are high, and go almost to zero if you get a job (nice for those case workers - job security)

And, some think the world owes them a living. They are fully capable of working, but believe that is for fools like me (nice for those case workers - job security). Too many of them, ruin it for those that truely need aid.

Zero sum game? Not quite.

As the price of metals go up, it is replace with plastic (oil and plant based), fiberglass (sand) carbon fiber, and ceramics.

Silicon chips are also made from sand with the oxygen removed (silicon), the copper intereconnects will be repaced with carbon nanotubes in the future.

The cost for most non-renewable resources has been falling. The demand from China has increased prices, only because demand exceeded capacity.

?!? Children the planet over are getting fatter, not just the west.

When the wes increases demand, capacity is increased, efficiency improved, costs drop. All markets are served. Please note what the global population was pre-industrial revolution. Pretty slow growth, some places were flat, based on food availability. Global population growth has been the result of increased food production, and much reduced prices.

?!? Who pays these salaries? Rock stars, movie stars, premium athletes, are all paid by us, with money were are willing to spend on them.

Government does a lousy job incentivising kids to get an education, of housing the poor, housing those that are mentally deficient, and providing a retirement for the elderly. They can't even maintain good terms with the rest of the world.

What else do you want government to muck up?

 

All of which is interesting and valid to varying degrees, but does not alter the fact that the earth's resources are finite, that monetary wealth represents those resources, and that the excess allocation of that wealth to one small sector, reduces the amount available to the rest of humanity. Result = the poverty and starvation we see across the globe.

 

Name one natural resource we have run out of, or even one that is significantly more expensive, adusted for inflation.

 

Are you implying that the earth's resources are infinite?

 

If a person is so mentally retarded they need someone to care for them, then they shouldn't be having kids. Someone with a mental illness who refuses to take medication shouldn't have kids either - they place them in danger by not medicating. The prostitute should have her kids taken away from her as well as being arrested for child neglect. Poor people have the option of welfare to help them raise any children.

We shouldn't interfere too much in a persons life, but if all these people have kids, and they can't care for them, that means its your responsibility to care for them, with your tax dollars. Reduce the number of babies born to the undesirable and you might save money.

At least that's how I see it, although I guess if you started with it, soon their would be calls to sterilise pretty much everyone for any reason.

 

You are stating the rich are starving the poor by using up all the resources - show me an example.

We are more efficient in our use of resources, and except when demand outpaces capacity (not supply) with China's building boom, prices have always fallen.

High demand (from the rich) has improved availability, and reduced price, to the poor.

Just show me an example where that is wrong.

 

Yes, that's exactly it. Its a slippery slope.
It could, not might, lead to breeding of a particularly desirable group of people.
I.e., the highly successful and beautiful only, measuring up to certain standards.
Utopian? Perhaps, but its been tried before.
Hey, don't you wish we'd live in an ideal world, one in which we wouldn't have to worry about these things, and all people were loving and responsible?

 

I agree, a man who will not take care of his children is the lowest form of life on earth.

 

And a woman.

 

Before we go any further with this discussion we need to agree that resources, at any given time, are finite. Sure, there might be enormous reserves of oil under the oceans, or huge amounts of iron ore or coal underground, but at any given point in time, the amount available is finite. Wealth represents available resources, and simple maths tell us that if the majority of wealth is allocated to 1% of the human population, the other 99% is likely to suffer deprivation. So it is a matter of degree, and if there are unconscionably wealthy people, there will be people suffering unconscionable poverty. That both exist in the world is a matter of record. That anyone should consider this acceptable, is a matter of wonder to me.

 

The rich buy SUV's and other fuel guzzling machines which drives demand and the price of gasoline up so that poor people can't afford to drive to work in their more efficient vehicles.

The same can be said about food. Corn being used for fuel is putting corn in short supply and instead of growing more they are letting the price to raise so it's more expensive for poor people to eat.

 

Yet the cost goes down, because the free market know about this limitation, and develops solutions. More efficient use of what we have, alternatives, etc. As prices start to rise, there is a business opportunity that is exploited.

The one resource that is infinite is mans ingenuity.

If you look at countries funded by the sale of natural resources, then your statement is true. The rich stay in power by subjegating the rest of the country. What about the rest of the world? I work for a very large company, and they don't buy "conflict resources", in an attempt to deprive those dictators of their power.

Gee, what ever happened to good old boys network - probably the invisible hand.....

A good percentage of the population seeks power, fame and wealth. Until the industrial revolution, a few would rise to the top, there would be a small middle class to supply the rich and powerful, the rest would live in poverty. There was a limit, because exploiting the poor is limited to what the poor can produce (or will produce, poverty is a lousy motivator to do your best).

After the industrial revolution, many could become rich, but only by maintaining a strong middle class. A "free" people produce much more, low cost energy produces much more, costs drop, wealth becomes cheaper.



Just answer one question, what motivates the rich to create poverty?

 

Which will include conflict, as opportunism replaces exchange. One has to be utopian over markets (and their tendency to fail) to suggest otherwise

Hierarchy provides the key means to ensure inefficient economic rents are maintained

 

Considering that the current population explosion is by those who "don't have to think about their children" because welfare guarantees them everything, I would like to advocate sterilization, not simply birth control which they would refuse. (They want their babies' welfare cheques too.)

 

I have long supported a temporary sterilization after one child if you can not take care of said child and you require my support via my taxes. I know this is kind of cruel but we have to get control of these people having five and six children because they get a bigger check at the end of the year.

People that act like feral animals by breading uncontrollably should be controlled. I would advocate cutting off support after one or two kids but I do not want dead babies because their parents are lazy pos that refuse to work.

It was at once an effective system, not it is just being taken advantage of so it requires change. Much like most of our social and corporate welfare systems.

 

Greed demands a vibrant middle class, the poor have to little to take.

The required ignorance exists in North Korea.

 

It requires a utopia to work? Wow, we must have been near a utopia for tha last 100+ years.....

From the poor?

 

A nonsense reply. You said "as prices start to rise, there is a business opportunity that is exploited". That is a deliberate attempt to suggest that economic relations can be understood purely in terms of exchange. It cannot. Once we factor in opportunistic behaviour we shift to conflict analysis and, by definition, how capitalism leads to coercion.

From the working class. Hierarchy, quite independent of supply-side notions of 'worth', leads to inefficient income differentials and- by definition- higher poverty rates.

 

Precisely - in equal parts. Thank you.