Do you think someone receiving assistance should continue to have children?

[CEDmom]

"Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?"

Some of the posts here are amazing. There is currently no economic incentive to have more children on welfare. People do it for a variety of complex social issues. (Please see Barkley's post)

I for one cannot fathom interfering in someone else's reproductive decisions, even when I don't agree with them. However, I cannot bear to see innocent children punished.

Neither can I which is why I want to see the issue addressed before there is an innocent victim. Adults can do as they choose but if they bring a child into this world that they are unable to care for emotionally and physically and have no plan to find a way to give the child all they need and deserve that's abuse - plain and simple. I'd never let a child suffer if I could at all help it. Living in poverty is suffering.

 

[cardaway]

There is currently no economic incentive to have more children on welfare. People do it for a variety of complex social issues. (Please see Barkley's post)

Is it called specifically and incentive to have more kids? No.

Is the typical increase more than what the actual cost to raise an addtional child? Yes.

 

[Chilehead Too]

I agree with the majority of the posters here. I feel no responsibility to take care of YOUR children. We have worked really hard to be able to afford to raise our children, to provide love, shelter, food and education. Until the government really starts cracking down, I am afraid that the cycle will continue. If some of these freeloaders put in as much time and energy in the workforce as they do figuring out ways to get over, they would all be better off.

As for the topic of vacationing while on assistance, that is unbelievable. I find it deplorable, not only that they are doing it, but bragging about it on message boards.

 

[Crankyshank]

I don't think the psychological effects of poverty is to blame for people on WIC getting pregnant while on WIC and also planning expensive trips to WDW - again while on WIC. That's entitlement, greed, thievery, and trashiness imho.

Anyone who can afford to go to WDW, doesn't need to be on WIC. And if they are qualifying based on a serious nutritional need, well then I really hope they aren't posting on the $10 a day thread because there's some serious lacking of nutrition on many of the posts on that thread.

I believe in hand ups. I know plenty of success stories from those on Welfare who used it as a starting point while they got their act together.

 

[Quatro is enough]

Tie the mother's tubes. It may be the cheaper way.

 

[freckles and boo]

There isn't a single religion that requires couples to reproduce and collect welfare.

The "spiritual" wives in the FLDS do it all the time because they are technically unwed mothers. The church refers to it as "bleeding the beast" and it is more than sanctioned. It is encouraged.

 

[mickeyfan2]

Anyone who can afford to go to WDW, doesn't need to be on WIC. And if they are qualifying based on a serious nutritional need, well then I really hope they aren't posting on the $10 a day thread because there's some serious lacking of nutrition on many of the posts on that thread.

Sorry to tell you but the persons on WIC that have looming WDW vacations do post on the $10 a day thread.

 

[Crankyshank]

Sorry to tell you but the persons on WIC that have looming WDW vacations do post on the $10 a day thread.

Seriously? Then what on earth is s/he doing with the WIC food? Doesn't WIC have strict requirements as to what you can purchase?

 

[CEDmom]

I don't think the psychological effects of poverty is to blame for people on WIC getting pregnant while on WIC and also planning expensive trips to WDW - again while on WIC. That's entitlement, greed, thievery, and trashiness imho.

Anyone who can afford to go to WDW, doesn't need to be on WIC. And if they are qualifying based on a serious nutritional need, well then I really hope they aren't posting on the $10 a day thread because there's some serious lacking of nutrition on many of the posts on that thread.

I believe in hand ups. I know plenty of success stories from those on Welfare who used it as a starting point while they got their act together.

Oh, they're there

 

[DisneyPhD]

Heck, breast feeding helps the new mother for not getting pregnant again so soon after too.

Oh goodness gracious. That simply is not true. You can most certainly get pregnant while breastfeeding. You can get pregnant even before you get your period again. Let us not spread that myth as fact (or even possibility) to people who should not be having more children.

I didn't say you couldn't get pregnant, just that it helps. It should not be used as only form of birth control, but it does make the chances lesser. Heck, pot use in guys makes sperm counts go down, but I don't recommend it as a form of birth control (more survival of the fittest.)

 

[barkley]

Is it called specifically and incentive to have more kids? No.

Is the typical increase more than what the actual cost to raise an addtional child? Yes.

there is no such thing as a 'typical increase'-when a woman on assistance has an additional child the grant does not go up. even back when this was not a regulation, at most a grant would increase $150.00-hardly enough for even the best of budgeters to provide minimaly for a child. foodstamps still increase however they go up (depending on the state, their housing costs, utility costs) perhaps $50 (and that is at the high end).

 

[cardaway]

If they are using one of the oldest tricks in the book, I'm not surprised WIC folks can afford to go to WDW on a regular basis

Many of the people on aid "forget" to tell anybody that they actually have a much higher household income than they officially report. Usally because they get a live in boyfriend or roommate.

 

[minnieandme]

Wow, there are a lot of responses that I haven't read all of them. First I want to say the gov't should not and will not dictate whether someone should have another child or not. Because they don't do that, they started welfare reform. Let's say you have 2 kids and you apply for and receive gov't assistance. You then get pregnant again with your 3rd child. The gov't WILL NOT give you any more money for that 3rd child. I'm not sure if you will get additional $ for food stamps. I do agree that if you are receiving benefits, they should make sure the mother is on some kind of birth control. The cycle has to end somewhere. There are tons of generational welfare families in this country it's unreal. For some families, that's all they know. I think the answer to that is education. Educate the families on getting off welfare, get some kind of job training so they can get a good job to take care of their own family.

(I'd have to finish my thought later, gotta go to a meeting)

 

[DisneyPhD]

Tie the mother's tubes. It may be the cheaper way.

Um ok Hitler. Tube tying is not easily reversible. Just because a person can not afford something right now, doesn't mean forever.

Did you know that the forced serialization was not only by Hitler during WWII but it came over to America with people who were Deaf or disabled. I knew an older deaf women who had her tubes tied (with out anyone even telling her) when she was 12. Why?????? She was deaf. Can't pass on the gene (stupid people, her deafness was caused by illnesses not genetic.) This all started by the wonderful friend of the "deaf" Alexander gram bell. He wanted to pass laws that deaf people could not marry other deaf people so it would stop the "spread of deafness." Did I mention his own wife was deaf? Goggle it, is an interesting (scary and sad too) read.

 

[ducklite]

The "spiritual" wives in the FLDS do it all the time because they are technically unwed mothers. The church refers to it as "bleeding the beast" and it is more than sanctioned. It is encouraged.

Bottom line, if they want to reproduce without regard to their ability to suport their children due to their religious beliefs, then let their church support them, not taxpayers.

Anne

 

[taximomfor4]

Some people do breastfeed, get the formula, then sell it on ebay.

NOTE:
I never saw anyone on the DIS say they were doing this.

Geez! In that short time I was on WIC, I had to supplement with formula, depending what medications I was on at the time. I didn't cash the vouchers for the formula when I was bf, only on the bad-med weeks. I did get dry beans, carrots, etc when I was bf, and the best thing wasn electric double pump. When I went back to work, that was invaluable.

When I was getting divorced way back when, oldest dd was 2. I had no home, no food, no job...went to a temp agency and applied, went straight to a local daycare center and enrolled dd, and began working. But I got foodstamps that month and the next, while getting a home, etc (a one-room shack with heating problems). Guess I have used assistance twice, then.

I only brought up these times in my life because I want to assert that sometimes normal, hardworking, clearthinking people are also using assistance (temporarily).

I think the assistance systems have merit, but only when used as temporary emergency measures. It's what they were intended for -- stepping stones. I do, personally, know people who have learned to play the system. Without a tremendous amount of manpower, it would be difficult, IMPOSSIBLE even, to close the loopholes.

 

[claudia]

Several years back, I employed a woman who did work full time with me. She did have 4 children already to support and I believe she was receiving some assistance. (food stamps and section 8) She had had her tubes tied with the last baby. Fast forward, she meets a man and marries. 1 year into the marriage they decide they want to have a child together. The system actually paid for her to have her tubes "untied" and 6 months later she was pregnant. After the birth, the new hubby high tailed it back to his country and she was full force into the system again.

 

[ducklite]

Um ok Hitler. Tube tying is not easily reversible. Just because a person can not afford something right now, doesn't mean forever.

While I believe that forced temporary sterilization (Depo or similar) should be mandated for as long as the person is receiving aid, I agree with you that tube tying--except in the most extreme cases--is wrong.

That said, a 30 year old woman with nine children who refuses to use birth control who has been on welfare her entire life might be an exception, especially if she has had child protective involved at any point in time.

Anne

 

[cardaway]

The "spiritual" wives in the FLDS do it all the time because they are technically unwed mothers. The church refers to it as "bleeding the beast" and it is more than sanctioned. It is encouraged.

Wonder what the "we must think of the kids" think about that group. Is it still something we all should support when it's actually the plan?

 

[barkley]

Barkley, it is evident that you speak from experience. However, the information is these three paragraphs simply is not true in my state, or at least partly untrue.

Paragraph 1.) The mother's financial incentive to continue to have children is is in the very fact that children are exempt from this. While the mother herself may not draw a check, each of her children do. While it it is true that the overall all amount of each check is reduced, she does still benefit from an increase in the total month's amount.

Paragraph 2.) The family's food stamp allotment is not reduced here by the fact that they may receive subsidized or free housing. I have many families who are receiving in excess of $600 per month in food stamps.

Paragraph 3.) I believe that Welfare to Work could begin to address this problem, IF it were being implemented. In my state, it is not. Even our Family Court judges have tried to speak with the "powers that be" who administer this money. We have been told at the state level that the program is not currently being implemented due to their own staff limitations. Sadly, I know this to be true. These same staffing difficulties also affect our state's Child Protective Services ability to adequately protect children.

I do live in my state's largest city and it is my understanding that the problems we face in this area are not as severe in other, smaller counties. I don't even begin to know the answers to these overwhelming problems, but I know we must find a way to begin addressing them. It sounds like it is being addressed much more effectively in your area.

the mother will not benefit from an overall increase-by virtue of her needs being eliminated from the grant the grant does not increase. the budget operates as though she is no longer in the home.

foodstamps are a federal program and the budgetary system is mandated by the feds. the basic componants to determine the benefit level are household composition, income (public assistance and all other forms), housing and utility costs. no state unless they are operating their own self funded program can waive these criteria. some states do give higher allotments but that is because they issue much decreased public assistance funds or bundle free housing as part of the public assistance grant (california traditionaly got a huge influx of midwesterners and southern p.a. clients because they would hear of our grant amounts-they did not realize that when they arrived while they would receive that grant amount their foodstamps would recompute and they would receive as much as a 75% decrease in beneifts-california tried to put a stop to the influx by implementing a law wherein a newcomer from another state was capped at that prior state's p.a. grant-but it was appealed in the superior courts and has yet to be resolved).

as to the wtw issues-i think this is a flaw with the clinton welfare reform package. the states were given autonomy to enact their own versions of wtw and many while technicaly in violation and subject to sanction (which in welfare terms means their funding gets cut even more) have failed to implement even the begining steps of the program's intent. it can be a horrendous issue when a person moves from a non implementing state to one that is on track-they can find that their 'welfare clock' is clicking near to the date when they will be ineligible to any type of grant let alone work services-and programs that could have helped them become self sufficient are unavailable to them