We can't help EVERYBODY but we MUST help certain people. You totally ignored the clear data objecting to this idea that welfare breeds more welfare to cherry pick.

You actually don't mean we need to stop welfare, you mean we need to stop ineffective handouts in favor of effective ways to address the issue. Effective programs can be provided and in some cases exist, just because you and I have elected idiots to shape the programs doesn't mean the premise is wrong. The implementation has been wrong.

If it can be shown that this is an effective way to reduce cost going forward, then I'm open to it. I just haven't seen any evidence supporting this.

But in general, I'm against any handouts at this point (glad you are calling them what they actually are now) given the results of so many other programs.

I think it is crystal clear that making someone's reproductive capabilities non-existent only needs a .02% success rate of kids requiring need if 1 million men get it a year just to get a 100% return the next year. That is a VERY low bar to set for success...

Yes, as a human I could see myself killing someone, in certain circumstances as a last resort (fight or flight, protection of my family, property, etc) and I'm pretty sure you would as well. Just because someone is part of the military doesn't necessarily give them the right to kill for any reason. I think you're being a bit dishonest here.

Define "hurt"

Not trying to be dishonest, yes I would kill someone in self defense of course or someone trying to injure a member of my family. In the service, you are told to kill the enemy - a person representing another organization (which is the main reason you are going to kill them, not because they threatened you as an individual).

As for hurt, reduce pay, lay off, fire, change roles, etc. If someone is underperforming you get rid of them and find a replacement you think can do a better job. I'm not talking physical harm here. As a human, I certainly do not want to stop their income coming in that feeds their kids, but as an organization I am part of an entity that is colder in its decision making process.

Think NFL, the phrase "it's just business" is thrown around all the time. Doesn't matter if someone has been a superstar for your organization and made the team/league tons of money, been popular with fans, helped you win a SuperBowl - for an organization it is "what have you done for me lately" and even moreso, what can you do for me now.

I'm not gonna read this entire thread, but I think most of you know where I stand on this issue. First and foremost, nothing is ever free. The government has to take money from some people to redistribute it to others in order to provide the "free" goodies. Even if the government mandates that healthcare providers do this, it will result in higher premiums for the rest of us. Free sounds good, but ultimately somebody is paying for it.

I won't even get started on the Welfare State, entitlement mentality, or the inefficiency, fraud, waste, and abuse that is rampant in every government run program. All of those things go without saying.

I am proposing that money come from the already mandated amount of money decided to be spent on welfare and other care. The up front investment will IMO lower the budget for next year and then continue to sustain itself by the amount of money it saves. It's never "free" it just reduced the amount of "free" handouts by reducing the number of people dependent on it.

Why don't we just eliminate "lifetime" welfare of all forms (except for the truly handicapped) and it will no longer be a problem? I could never justify giving unearned "lifetime" benefits to able-bodied people under any circumstance. Sure, if somebody falls on hard times, help them out, but don't make them dependent upon "free" money for their well being for eternity. All blood-sucking parasites need to get a job, but they won't as long as the government gives them "free" money. This madness needs to stop.

I would consider children under 18 or not out of high school (not dropped out) to fall under the the area of needing assistance. If we agree on that (which a few above have manned up and said they would let a 6 month old starve to death with no gov't help) then we put ourselves in the wake of a LOT of uncared for children that need help. Having ways to reduce that number (helping their parents not get pregnant in the first place) would be an investment to hedge the amount of money spent in the future.