>>>>I'm not against welfare for those who can't make a living for medical, physical, or reasons beyond their control.
>>>>
>>>>You can be sure that people who have little else to occupy their time will figure out ways to fit within whatever parameters you choose to identify worthy recipients. Yes, some people are career bludgers, often blessed with cunning that enrages people who want to live fairly. But the fact is that we can afford their load and IMHO it is better to pay ten bludgers rather than risking refusing one deserving family. The alternatives are draconian and not something that would sit comfortably with most people. IMHO welfare is the best solution of a series of bad options; all we can hope is that by educating and offering employment and opportunity we can start to break the poverty cycle.
>>>>
>>>>I'm absolutely against those on welfare breeding new welfare generations. If they can't pay for themselves, they have ABSOLUTELY NO *RIGHT* TO GENERATE MORE CHILDREN FOR ME TO FEED/PROVIDE CHILD CARE/EDUCATE/PROSECUTE/INCARCERATE/ETC.
>>>>
>>>>I agree. Of course they have no "right" to keep procreating when they can't meet their responsibilities to their children. But we might as well accept that they are going to unless we force them not to. Is that what you are proposing?
>>>
>>>Yes! Use whatever medical options that are prudent to ensure that those who are on welfare for more that a very short period are prevented from conceiving children at least during the time they are on welfare.
>>
>>Aber zat von't be der "Final Soluzion", vill it, Herr Kuhn?
>
>I think there's a good case for people with views like that being denied the vote.

Works for me. Of course, I won't have to pay taxes either.


Oh wait, I forgot. The people who don't pay taxes and suck money from those who do would want to keep the income stream. Democrats in action.