Should we ban the impovershed from having children?

[Imperializt Russia]

You're aware of what "tax" is, right?

It's not just for buying hookers and blow with.

if the world's gov'ts could afford to feed, clothe, and house everyone, don't you think we'd be doing that already?

We can, we simply choose not to. There are some valid reasons why we don't. There are many reasons that are much less valid why we don't.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Sure. Why not? Isn't it the kids we're doing this for?

If the gov't can afford it without taxing everyone to the point of poverty, that'd be a great idea. I just don't think it'd work out like that.

Again, as I showed earlier, it is actually cheaper to simply provide housing for homeless people without preconditions than it is to leave them on the street with all of the associated costs that that brings.

[Fashiontopia]

It's not the role of Government to decide what people do reproductively. So this question shouldn't even be asked, because it's not up to the Government's choice anyway.

what's more important; your happiness, or everyone else's quality of life?

What quality of life is it to be told you're too poor to reproduce.

And second of all: Net Worth =/= Reproductive Genes

Being poor is not hereditary.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

No.

It's actually cheaper to provide housing for the homeless without preconditions than it is to keep them on the streets, and yet we don't do that.

Actually, it's slowly starting to come around as the norm in many communities and states across the country. Now it would be nice if things were expedited a bit more though... it's just that everyone else is waiting to see further results from this social experiment.

Which is understandable, since it seems counterintuitive despite the fact that it works.

[Imperial Esplanade]

Actually, it's slowly starting to come around as the norm in many communities and states across the country. Now it would be nice if things were expedited a bit more though... it's just that everyone else is waiting to see further results from this social experiment.

Which is understandable, since it seems counterintuitive despite the fact that it works.

From all the statistics, it would appear to be the case. However, it's all still very early to truly brandish this as a complete, undeniable success story. Granted, it's been 10 years since Utah has their 'war on poverty' with immediate success, but there are many, many reasons as to why people are homeless and/or jobless in the first place. I just think we should really focus on those underlying reasons as well, since homelessness is really just a mere symptom of perhaps a greater societal, or perhaps even human health, problem. It's amazing to get homeless off the streets and into homes, but there are still many are skeptical that it's the best and most cost-effective way to handle it... but few will argue that what we're doing right now is it.

[Galloism]

Which is understandable, since it seems counterintuitive despite the fact that it works.

From all the statistics, it would appear to be the case. However, it's all still very early to truly brandish this as a complete, undeniable success story. Granted, it's been 10 years since Utah has their 'war on poverty' with immediate success, but there are many, many reasons as to why people are homeless and/or jobless in the first place. I just think we should really focus on those underlying reasons as well, since homelessness is really just a mere symptom of perhaps a greater societal, or perhaps even human health, problem. It's amazing to get homeless off the streets and into homes, but there are still many are skeptical that it's the best and most cost-effective way to handle it... but few will argue that what we're doing right now is it.

Tackling the root of the problem is all well and good, but, because we don't live in a perfect world, some will undoubtedly fall through the cracks despite our best efforts.

Having a program like this operation is both fiscally sound and humanitarian. By the tackling the root of poverty and homelessness, perhaps we can reduce the cost of the program over time, but we should never abolish it (unless circumstances radically change to the point where NO one ever winds up homeless).

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Which is understandable, since it seems counterintuitive despite the fact that it works.

From all the statistics, it would appear to be the case. However, it's all still very early to truly brandish this as a complete, undeniable success story. Granted, it's been 10 years since Utah has their 'war on poverty' with immediate success, but there are many, many reasons as to why people are homeless and/or jobless in the first place. I just think we should really focus on those underlying reasons as well, since homelessness is really just a mere symptom of perhaps a greater societal, or perhaps even human health, problem. It's amazing to get homeless off the streets and into homes, but there are still many are skeptical that it's the best and most cost-effective way to handle it... but few will argue that what we're doing right now is it.

Certainly, but part of the point of the program is that it's immensely difficult to address these underlying reasons when people are on the streets. It's nearly impossible to improve one's mental health, to get off of drugs, to stop drinking, to find gainful employment, or to in any way improve one's life without a permanent address to go to at night and a phone number that one can be reached at.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Reproductive controls, favoring boys in India, has created a huge disparity of the sexes there. Abuse towards girls is rampant and doctors accept monetary bribes to perform sex determination tests and abortions on, often, unwilling women.

China's One Child Policy has divided families, and in the process, it has created a sector of the population of children who, under Chinese law, do not exist. They're denied government benefits, including passports and access to health care. It has caused people to flee the country and, in rural areas, has created a problem of little girls being kidnapped and kept by others to ensure their sons have a bride when they come of age.

Not to mention the fact China's economy is going to fracture thanks to a labor shortage, and the fact males outnumber women will hurt them in the long run.

It is hurting them right now. Family planning police arrests people found in violation of the One Child Policy. The father is often sterilized, and the mothers submitted to abortions, regardless of the term they're into the pregnancy. These families are treated like pariahs and often the head of household loses their job.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

From all the statistics, it would appear to be the case. However, it's all still very early to truly brandish this as a complete, undeniable success story. Granted, it's been 10 years since Utah has their 'war on poverty' with immediate success, but there are many, many reasons as to why people are homeless and/or jobless in the first place. I just think we should really focus on those underlying reasons as well, since homelessness is really just a mere symptom of perhaps a greater societal, or perhaps even human health, problem. It's amazing to get homeless off the streets and into homes, but there are still many are skeptical that it's the best and most cost-effective way to handle it... but few will argue that what we're doing right now is it.

Certainly, but part of the point of the program is that it's immensely difficult to address these underlying reasons when people are on the streets. It's nearly impossible to improve one's mental health, to get off of drugs, to stop drinking, to find gainful employment, or to in any way improve one's life without a permanent address to go to at night and a phone number that one can be reached at.

^Can confirm.

If you have a sense of hopelessness, in any aspect of your life, getting all your shit together in quick succession is frankly impossible. Not everyone is able to think it's even worth a fucking try, whether it is or not.

Which is why everyone, everywhere, should be fully entitled to adequate shelter, food, and water. You have that, maybe you can get up the gumption to go make yourself a better life and contribute to society. If you don't... honestly, no one should be trying to force you to.

[Gauthier]

Also, people with any sort of intellectual disability. Gotta keep that gene pool smart, yo.

A lobotomy would be cheaper to be honest. All it costs is the destruction of someone's personality.

And it's not really a devastating impairment, as reality television shows prove again and again.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

A lobotomy would be cheaper to be honest. All it costs is the destruction of someone's personality.

And it's not really a devastating impairment, as reality television shows prove again and again.

Are you talking about the people on the shows, the viewers, or both?

[Gauthier]

And it's not really a devastating impairment, as reality television shows prove again and again.

Are you talking about the people on the shows, the viewers, or both?

Both obviously, but the ones on the show are benefitting in spite of or because of it.

[Valkalan]

The best time to cultivate skills is during the elementary and secondary levels of education.

which, again, means nothing if you can't AFFORD an education.

Ok wait wait - I have this great idea.

Let's make elementary and secondary education free, and then heavily subsidize post-secondary education so that cost is not a concern for children.

There's no such thing as a free education. If you mean taxpayer-funded education, public elementary and secondary education are already available, though of questionable quality. Aside from being enormously expensive, free or subsidized college education tends to allow students of lesser aptitudes and/or work ethic to attend college. Colleges are interested in keeping their averages up, resulting in a decline in the quality of education. When education is governed by market principles, banks will only loan to those whose academic performance and career choice will likely result in employment after college and therefore a repayment of educational debts. A free or subsidized education undermines this effect, students will be free to incur immense expenses on the taxpayer, studying the most useless material and graduating into unemployment or underemployment. There is simply little value added.

I agree that costs are an issue, but I believe that the answer is more work and internship opportunities, starting at the high school level, in which students can earn work experience, gain marketable skills and earn income that can be used to pay an education.

No, castration is permanent, parental licensing is not.

Parental licensing may not be permanent, but the grotesque violation of personal liberties that you are proposing is nonetheless as barbaric as castration.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Parental licensing may not be permanent, but the grotesque violation of personal liberties that you are proposing is nonetheless as barbaric as castration.

Considering how poverty tends to be a life-long affair, and the fact he's offering no way to raise people currently impoverished from said financial state, sounds pretty damn permanent to me.

So long as there is capitalism, there will be involuntarily impoverished people.

[Immoren]

There's no such thing as a free education. If you mean taxpayer-funded education, public elementary and secondary education are already available, though of questionable quality. Aside from being enormously expensive, free or subsidized college education tends to allow students of lesser aptitudes and/or work ethic to attend college. Colleges are interested in keeping their averages up, resulting in a decline in the quality of education. When education is governed by market principles, banks will only loan to those whose academic performance and career choice will likely result in employment after college and therefore a repayment of educational debts. A free or subsidized education undermines this effect, students will be free to incur immense expenses on the taxpayer, studying the most useless material and graduating into unemployment or underemployment. There is simply little value added.

Entrance exams?

[Valkalan]

Parental licensing may not be permanent, but the grotesque violation of personal liberties that you are proposing is nonetheless as barbaric as castration.

Considering how poverty tends to be a life-long affair, and the fact he's offering no way to raise people currently impoverished from said financial state, sounds pretty damn permanent to me.

So long as there is capitalism, there will be involuntarily impoverished people.

Of course with capitalism there is great social mobility, and it isn't too difficult for the poor climb the social ladder when compared to alternatives.

[Imperializt Russia]

Considering how poverty tends to be a life-long affair, and the fact he's offering no way to raise people currently impoverished from said financial state, sounds pretty damn permanent to me.

So long as there is capitalism, there will be involuntarily impoverished people.

Of course with capitalism there is great social mobility, and it isn't too difficult for the poor climb the social ladder when compared to alternatives.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Considering how poverty tends to be a life-long affair, and the fact he's offering no way to raise people currently impoverished from said financial state, sounds pretty damn permanent to me.

So long as there is capitalism, there will be involuntarily impoverished people.

Of course with capitalism there is great social mobility, and it isn't too difficult for the poor climb the social ladder when compared to alternatives.

You're being sarcastic, right?

[Geilinor]

Parental licensing may not be permanent, but the grotesque violation of personal liberties that you are proposing is nonetheless as barbaric as castration.

Considering how poverty tends to be a life-long affair, and the fact he's offering no way to raise people currently impoverished from said financial state, sounds pretty damn permanent to me.

So long as there is capitalism, there will be involuntarily impoverished people.

Poverty is not a life-long affair. About one-third of Americans have lived some time under the poverty line but only about 13-15% are below it at any one time. http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2014/01/1-in-3_americans_experience_at.html

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Considering how poverty tends to be a life-long affair, and the fact he's offering no way to raise people currently impoverished from said financial state, sounds pretty damn permanent to me.

So long as there is capitalism, there will be involuntarily impoverished people.

Of course with capitalism there is great social mobility, and it isn't too difficult for the poor climb the social ladder when compared to alternatives.

Except that the United States has remarkably low social mobility.

[Geilinor]

Of course with capitalism there is great social mobility, and it isn't too difficult for the poor climb the social ladder when compared to alternatives.

Except that the United States has remarkably low social mobility.

"When compared to alternatives" and the United States is not the gold standard of capitalism.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Except that the United States has remarkably low social mobility.

"When compared to alternatives" and the United States is not the gold standard of capitalism.

Then who is?

[Calimera II]

That would be disastrous.

[Shiraan]

Parental licensing may not be permanent, but the grotesque violation of personal liberties that you are proposing is nonetheless as barbaric as castration.

Considering how poverty tends to be a life-long affair, and the fact he's offering no way to raise people currently impoverished from said financial state, sounds pretty damn permanent to me.

So long as there is capitalism, there will be involuntarily impoverished people.

at one point my family was homeless. With effort and hard work, even the poorest of people can get out of poverty.

[Valkalan]

Of course with capitalism there is great social mobility, and it isn't too difficult for the poor climb the social ladder when compared to alternatives.

You're being sarcastic, right?

What are the alternatives to capitalism that you mean to imply are better at advancing the poor? I imagine some variety of socialism. Classic socialist states existed in a state of economic stagnation with equality through shared wretchedness. Of perhaps you refer to the welfare states of today can only exist through on the backs of capitalist production.