What is Digg?187 Comments
- NaziHatinChimp, on 06/26/2008, -8/+55Those children need to stop being so lazy and get a job.
- u8myfoood, on 06/27/2008, -1/+23I say hand out more free condoms, prevent them from being born.
If you can't afford kids, then don't have any kids! - mrzeero, on 06/27/2008, -1/+17More proof that the government would be better off providing free birth control and sterilization to anyone who wanted it.
- denizen42, on 06/27/2008, -8/+21"leave no millionnaire behind"
- Lionhart, on 06/27/2008, -5/+18What is that like 10 minutes in Iraq?
- Hillsfar, on 06/26/2008, -9/+20It's the neo-con agenda. Withhold access to condoms and birth control. Then don't cut budgets so they don't provide for the resulting babies, so they grow up poor and struggle and violently fight amongst themselves. And send the ones who want to make it out of the ghetto (by signing up for the military and its watered down promise of college) straight into foreign lands (only if they have the world's 2nd largest proven oil reserves or are potential pathways for oil pipelines from the Caspian Sea).
- obliviousfool, on 06/27/2008, -3/+13I can't digg anything by Nancy "impeachment is off the table" Pelosi.
- truspect0r, on 06/27/2008, -0/+10Damn disgrace. Fix our country's problem first before we spread freedom and liberty to others.
- kenvsryu, on 06/27/2008, -3/+12These damn poor children is hindering our war effort. Start the draft, 2 birds with 1 stone.
- JDoms, on 06/27/2008, -1/+10I have a modest proposal to fix this problem.
- inactive, on 06/27/2008, -3/+12Why does the government always worry about lost productivity? Sounds like a communist country where the productivity belongs to the state. What about liberty, where your labor is your own?
- AlaskaLoneWolf, on 06/27/2008, -0/+9Yeah, they should be working in a coal mine and help out with the energy crisis, or in a steel mill making us a cheaper car... if they'd jus' take away their damn iPods playing that infernal Rap music, we could get them to hold down a job... sheesh.
- dojonz, on 06/27/2008, -1/+10I agree. Get those darn Canadians to pay for child welfare in the US.
- charm803, on 06/27/2008, -0/+8I don't know why you are being dugg down, but I agree.
Angelina Jolie once said that she found it ironic that she went through all the trouble to see if she was a fit parent to be able to adopt, but when she had her own daughter, there were no barriers.
She said she could have been a crack mother, but no one would bother as long as it was her own child.
I agree. Poor parenting! - Koushiro, on 06/27/2008, -2/+10Yeah, and the pentagon wastes trillions of dollars a year without having to account for a penny of it. Odd system we have here in the States.
- zelig, on 06/27/2008, -6/+14The parents of these kids are the ones who are usually at fault. And we exacerbate the problem with welfare handouts. If you're doing crack and have no job and are on public assistance, who's fault is that?
- JBmtk, on 06/27/2008, -0/+7Parents are the problem most of the time and to fix that is education. If we give up all hope on them, they don't simply disappear....but degenerate.
- inactive, on 06/27/2008, -1/+8Oh yeah, like this only started being a problem after welfare was introduced.
- credential101, on 06/27/2008, -4/+11Moral of the story: Don't have kids if you can't support them!!
- kingjafee, on 06/27/2008, -1/+8What will our children become without proper guidance?
Probably nothing...
So ain't the Devil happy? - bobster00001, on 06/26/2008, -5/+11so your telling me... with the iraw war, and child poverty it works out to be 3.6 trillion dollars a in 6 years?
- humboldt79, on 06/27/2008, -4/+10Poverty is the root of all our societal problems.
- Barackalypse, on 06/27/2008, -3/+9I love you you're getting dugg down, apparently you and I should be responsible for their actions.
- goes211, on 06/27/2008, -2/+8If 13 million kids are costing 500 billion in lost productivity, then each of those kids should be contributing close to $40,000 of productivity to our economy.
Wow! Those kids are talented! - JonForTheWin, on 06/27/2008, -3/+8Exactly! Poor people are too stupid to handle safe sex practices.
(Take what I said there as satirical or serious, it works and applies either way.) - BlackHatFerret, on 06/27/2008, -0/+5Wrap it before you tap it.
/Thread - rhylan, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5I've been saying that for years... They're all grown up now though
- ZenMojo, on 06/27/2008, -0/+5And they have jobs. Mostly selling drugs.
- inactive, on 06/27/2008, -5/+10The federal government is authorized to supply birth control? Where is that in the Constitution?
"out of the ghetto" - yea, those poor white boys who keep the numbers up in the military are sure glad to get out of the ghetto. Here's a link YOU will like.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070624/ ... - mousky, on 06/27/2008, -3/+8Is the American version of poverty, where many low income households own TVs, VCRs, DVD players, cars and even homes and children are obese? Or is the African version of poverty, where children die because of malnutrition, famine, disease or war?
Perhaps Pelosi can explain why the US government spends billions on earmarks and pork-barrel projects, the Iraq war, agricultural subsidies that INCREASE the price of food and largely benefit corporations and wealthy landowners, increasing the size of the civil service, creating the money sucking department of Homeland Security, and so on and so on and so on? - locamama, on 06/27/2008, -0/+5Okay - how about modern China? They regulate childbirth. Should we follow their example?
- bjornski, on 06/27/2008, -0/+5Free birth control is a good thing.
- Barackalypse, on 06/27/2008, -2/+7The government wouldn't be deciding, they would just make permanent sterilization a condition for receiving welfare payments. It is totally voluntary, nobody is forcing you to take the taxpayers money because you were too irresponsible to pay your own way through life.
- jinsundo, on 06/27/2008, -1/+6"Persistent childhood poverty costs our country about $500 billion a year by way of lost productivity, school drop-outs, crime, and growing numbers enrolled in nutrition and public assistance programs".
Ohhhhhh I seeeeee. So a starving child is significant only to the degree to which it cost us cash out of our pocket; money that we desperately need so that we can buy more fancy dancy ipods, cable TV and gas guzzling SUV's. - Barackalypse, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4Actually, I consider dogs to be worth substantially more than parents who neglect their children. I think its pretty damning when an animal provides more effective care for its offspring than a human being. Perhaps you should reconsider what intrinsic worth a person has when they bring children into the world to suffer. Only rapists and child molesters are lower forms of life.
- ThomasPaine23, on 06/27/2008, -1/+5Dir Sir,
it has come to our attention that your rather outspoken opinions are not in standing with the correct traditions and views of a subject of the United States (TM). As such please be aware that a representative of the United States (TM) will be calling shortly upon your place of residence.
At such time said representative will determine if your views can be better adjusted to reflect an appropriate outlook, or if more drastic action is needed.
Sincerely,
The Gubment - Barackalypse, on 06/27/2008, -3/+7Except birth control isn't going to solve the problem, short of surgical sterilization. These people are either ignorant, indifferent, or irresponsible, three horrible traits in terms of following through on properly practiced safe sex practices.
- locamama, on 06/27/2008, -3/+7Well I know it's not the kids fault.
- ousthouse, on 06/27/2008, -3/+7Rich people... for some reason.
- JamesBrown, on 06/27/2008, -5/+9but it isn't. why should we reward people who make bad decisions.
I feel sorry for these children. It's not their fault that their parents are deadbeats, but that doesn't mean we should glorify and reward behavior that harms society - Barackalypse, on 06/27/2008, -1/+5LOL, that should have been "I love how". Guess thats what I get for talking on the phone with the girl and posting here at the same time.
- humboldt79, on 06/27/2008, -2/+6Children never choose to live in poverty.
- danfive555, on 06/27/2008, -2/+6We're the first world, i.e. developed economy, things go differently here. That includes the definition of poverty.
And about the earmarks, pork, and subsidies, they are short-term political fixes; ways for politicians to get ahead by helping/enriching their constituents. - nick1971, on 06/27/2008, -1/+5It’s taken me 30 mins to read through your comments.
As I live in Germany where we have social market economy, I am very confused and saddened by some of the comments made.
In Europe we are brought up in the belief that it is the privilege of the strong and the rich to look after the weak and the poor, our health and social security systems are set up as universal coverage ass it may well be me tomorrow who needs help.
The German model is not perfect and the social net that we have set up needs to be made cheaper and more efficient, but we see it as a key aspect of the civilized nature of our country.
There are in your comments a number of frustrations that are worth addressing
It is true that any social security system needs to be carefully set up to avoid abuse. The reason that your Socioeconomic class 6 citizens are having lots of children is presumably a function of increased benefit per child. By reducing the spend per child within a family the parent has more money to spend on drugs.
My view would be that the money should be targeted better at the children in terms of goods and services. E.g. Feed the kids at school. Provide clothes not money for clothes etc.
There also needs to be a more effective policy on drugs decoupling it from crime. For example, legalize it, allow people to purchase it from drug stores, educate kids about the risks, provide programs for addicts to kick their habit. Before you start undiging me look at the costs for the ware against drugs and the costs of keeping so many people in prison.
There are also a couple of reasons why social benefits are necessary.
If you want to get a job you need to turn up in clothes which look like they have been washed and ironed.
There are universal health care programs which need to be performed for the sake of the population at large – these start with standard child immunizations but also include comprehensive treatment for tuberculosis.
I mention the 2nd as drug-resistant tuberculosis is rising rapidly in large cities in the US this is a public health risk for all. - shig, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4That's why they call it an "infantry".
- phrenzy, on 06/27/2008, -4/+8... Waits for Ron Paul / Ayn Rand types to chime in about "it's not my job to take care of these kids..." etc.
- DivisibleByZero, on 06/27/2008, -0/+4I generally draw the line at whether or not your "freedoms and liberties" are hurting other people. Do you have the freedom to drink alcohol? Absolutely. Do you have the freedom to drink and drive? No, because somebody might get hurt.
Do you have the freedom to caste multiple unwitting children into a life of poverty because you were too selfish to wear a condom or keep it in your pants? Unfortunately you do. - ZenMojo, on 06/27/2008, -1/+5Pretty ***** poor considering Hitler jailed and killed most of the intellectuals.
- KingGorilla, on 06/27/2008, -0/+3If you can't feed em don't breed em
-
Show 51 - 100 of 188 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is