Ontopic Should people who are government leaches be allowed to have children?

Dory

Now with 100% less wickie
Oct 15, 2004
36,512
2,624
673
Robin Hood Country
Marklar
6,816.90₥
Hot topic in the office today: If both you and your partner get state benefits, are deemed unable to work because of whatever medical ailment and demand a carer for you and your partner (at taxpayers expense) should you be allowed a child who will just mean more of a burden on taxpayers.

Office consensus is yes but you should have to sign a contract where you are legally and financially responsible for that child and are not entitled to any more handouts.

Fucking leaches. People take no responsibility of themselves in this country, it's sickening.

Rar!
 

Dory

Now with 100% less wickie
Oct 15, 2004
36,512
2,624
673
Robin Hood Country
Marklar
6,816.90₥
In a perfect world, we would drug test them too. Get your life in order and then you can do whatever the fuck you want.
What limits would this have though? Considering imo alcohol is way more harmful than weed but somehow alcohol is socially acceptable does that mean either of these is a fail? Or just the one the propoganda tells you is bad?
 

APRIL

Feel Free to Pee on Me
Sep 30, 2004
101,826
36,445
1,823
Houston
Marklar
59,053.42₥
What limits would this have though? Considering imo alcohol is way more harmful than weed but somehow alcohol is socially acceptable does that mean either of these is a fail? Or just the one the propoganda tells you is bad?
No substance abuse whatsoever. The first place assistance money goes to is drugs/alcohol.
 

Dory

Now with 100% less wickie
Oct 15, 2004
36,512
2,624
673
Robin Hood Country
Marklar
6,816.90₥
No substance abuse whatsoever. The first place assistance money goes to is drugs/alcohol.
Smoking? No smokers to have kids either?

And I wouldn't say that. I'd say people with substance abuse problems spent money on drugs and alcohol, but people who don't have problems don't. Pretty simple. Not everybody on welfare is a drug addict. :lol:

Plenty of people on welfare or unemployed (long term or due to the recession) can only JUST pay their bills and almost their food nevermind affording luxuries like alcohol.
 

dbzeag

Wants to kiss you where it stinks
Jun 9, 2006
16,881
343
298
41
Marklar
565.09₥
To get a job, most employers require a drug test, and that includes alcohol on the breath. If you pick up your unemployment check or welfare check, it is like a job replacement, you should be required to follow the same scrutiny.

The kid thing is a bit much. Rather than forcing chastity, a hand out of condoms with each welfare check would be handy/nice.
 

APRIL

Feel Free to Pee on Me
Sep 30, 2004
101,826
36,445
1,823
Houston
Marklar
59,053.42₥
Smoking? No smokers to have kids either?

And I wouldn't say that. I'd say people with substance abuse problems spent money on drugs and alcohol, but people who don't have problems don't. Pretty simple. Not everybody on welfare is a drug addict. :lol:

Plenty of people on welfare or unemployed (long term or due to the recession) can only JUST pay their bills and almost their food nevermind affording luxuries like alcohol.
Sure for the smoking part. Get your shit together and you can smoke.

I'm not saying that everyone that's poor abuses substances. But you must notice that the poor abusers outweigh the rich abusers and not because there are more poor people than rich.

If someone wants assistance from taxpayers money then they should show good faith on getting their life back on track. Otherwise, leave the money for people that do want honest help and not a free ride so they can contribute back to society.
 

Dory

Now with 100% less wickie
Oct 15, 2004
36,512
2,624
673
Robin Hood Country
Marklar
6,816.90₥
So Ape you believe mental illnesses are on a different kilter than other medical problems? Would you give someone with heart problems some drugs to make them better so they could contribute whilst not treating someone with a mental disease? Because you should look up stats for mental disease/illness in substance abusers. Don't blame the drugs, there are real illnesses behind this, just as there are reasons someone has high blood pressure or a bad knee joint.
 

Phoenix

Flaccid Member
Aug 21, 2009
856
14
0
inside your head
Marklar
0.00₥
Office consensus is yes but you should have to sign a contract where you are legally and financially responsible for that child and are not entitled to any more handouts.
Yeah that sounds about right, no one should be barred from having kids, but they certainly shouldn't be given extra handouts for having one. Indeed the state benefits for the parents should be cut off after a certain period if they haven't made any effort to get a job either.
 

Dory

Now with 100% less wickie
Oct 15, 2004
36,512
2,624
673
Robin Hood Country
Marklar
6,816.90₥
Yeah that sounds about right, no one should be barred from having kids, but they certainly shouldn't be given extra handouts for having one. Indeed the state benefits for the parents should be cut off after a certain period if they haven't made any effort to get a job either.
Werd. I'm of the opinion people should get unemployment benefit for a limited time, after that time (6-9months) they have to accept whatever job they get given, if they get fired or leave within 6-9 moinths of being employed they cannot claim any more benefits. At least even if the people worked for the minimum time they'd be contributing back into the tax system.
 

APRIL

Feel Free to Pee on Me
Sep 30, 2004
101,826
36,445
1,823
Houston
Marklar
59,053.42₥
So Ape you believe mental illnesses are on a different kilter than other medical problems? Would you give someone with heart problems some drugs to make them better so they could contribute whilst not treating someone with a mental disease? Because you should look up stats for mental disease/illness in substance abusers. Don't blame the drugs, there are real illnesses behind this, just as there are reasons someone has high blood pressure or a bad knee joint.
I am someone with very little sympathy for the human population. Hopefully that answers your post. LOL
 

Dory

Now with 100% less wickie
Oct 15, 2004
36,512
2,624
673
Robin Hood Country
Marklar
6,816.90₥
I think an implant that means you're pretty much infertile until you hit 21 shoudl be mandatory. Teen pregnancy would be solved! I see NO reason why someone 16-18 should have children, at all.