Staying single to collect welfare benefits

[threecrazykids]

So I gather from this thread about half of us are unhappy with the state of welfare (or our welfare state).

What do YOU plan on doing about it? I know what I am doing. The primaries for congress will be coming soon.
Do your homework! Get involved!!!

There are soooo many issues with the welfare system it's hard to know where to even start. Living off of my tax dollars when you are fully capable of working irks me to no end. Continuing to have babies to get more money shouldn't be condoned by the state but that is what appears to be happening.

In my personal opinion (flame away on this one), I feel that anyone who is on state aid should be REQUIRED to be on birth control to even get their welfare check/food stamps/medical assistance. They should have to do drug tests, AND show proof of a depo shot or some sort of birth control administration by a doctor before they can even collect. And not just proof of a prescription of birth control pills...those won't work if you don't take them.

I would much rather pay for their kids to be in daycare while they work than to hand over more money for every baby they have so they don't make MORE money by staying home. I know it's a long shot, but seriously...the more babies they have the more money they get, that is INSANE.

At some point people have to be held responsible for their actions. I completely understand falling on hard times and needing TEMPORARY assistance, however lifelong assistance is uncalled for.

 

[Muushka]

There are soooo many issues with the welfare system it's hard to know where to even start. Living off of my tax dollars when you are fully capable of working irks me to no end. Continuing to have babies to get more money shouldn't be condoned by the state but that is what appears to be happening.

In my personal opinion (flame away on this one), I feel that anyone who is on state aid should be REQUIRED to be on birth control to even get their welfare check/food stamps/medical assistance. They should have to do drug tests, AND show proof of a depo shot or some sort of birth control administration by a doctor before they can even collect. And not just proof of a prescription of birth control pills...those won't work if you don't take them.

I would much rather pay for their kids to be in daycare while they work than to hand over more money for every baby they have so they don't make MORE money by staying home. I know it's a long shot, but seriously...the more babies they have the more money they get, that is INSANE.

At some point people have to be held responsible for their actions. I completely understand falling on hard times and needing TEMPORARY assistance, however lifelong assistance is uncalled for.

Yes, but all of your points do not require anything on your part. What will YOU personally do?

We do have some control.

 

[threecrazykids]

Yes, but all of your points do not require anything on your part. What will YOU personally do?

We do have some control.

Hmmm....good question. What CAN I personally do? I honestly don't know.

 

[ssawka]

In my personal opinion (flame away on this one), I feel that anyone who is on state aid should be REQUIRED to be on birth control to even get their welfare check/food stamps/medical assistance. They should have to do drug tests, AND show proof of a depo shot or some sort of birth control administration by a doctor before they can even collect. And not just proof of a prescription of birth control pills...those won't work if you don't take them.

I'm not saying I don't agree with you, but the religious right wing would never let this happen. They won't even allow schools to teach safe sex or hand out condoms. They'd rather live with blinders on saying "preach abstinence" (since it has worked so well so far) Sorry for changing the topic, but the right wing is just so full of contradictions "Stop having babies, but don't teach sex ed". "We are pro-life, but let's go to war". "States should have the right to choose their laws, but don't let them allow gay marriage or legalize marijuana". I know there are lots of examples on the left too, but I am a little jaded in my view right now.

 

[Muushka]

Hmmm....good question. What CAN I personally do? I honestly don't know.

Our elected officials are just that, elected.
Congress, by the grace of God, only serves 2 year terms. Senators serve 6, but 1/3 (I believe) have elections every 2 years.

Become involved in who is running for your congress from your district. Look at their stance on the issues that you feel are important and be sure that they will represent you. See if your senator's term is up this year, and pay attention to who may be challenging him or her. Make your vote count!

I saw what happened when we became complaisant.

 

[princessmom29]

Yes, but all of your points do not require anything on your part. What will YOU personally do?

We do have some control.

I spend a lot of time trying to teach my kids at school that there is a better way out there. Very few really take it to heart, but if I can reach 1 or 2 it is worth it. Some of my kids have never even left the city limits. They have no concept of the world outside their neighborhood, or what is possible.

 

[Muushka]

I'm not saying I don't agree with you, but the religious right wing would never let this happen. They won't even allow schools to teach safe sex or hand out condoms. They'd rather live with blinders on saying "preach abstinence" (since it has worked so well so far) Sorry for changing the topic, but the right wing is just so full of contradictions "Stop having babies, but don't teach sex ed". "We are pro-life, but let's go to war". "States should have the right to choose their laws, but don't let them allow gay marriage or legalize marijuana". I know there are lots of examples on the left too, but I am a little jaded in my view right now.

This type of slam will get this thread closed. And yes, you are a little jaded!

 

[ssawka]

This type of slam will get this thread closed. And yes, you are a little jaded!

It's probably time for this thread to be closed anyway.

1. It's not budget related.
2. No ones opinion is going to be pursuaded one way or another
3. Everything that needs to be said has been said
4. It has the potential to get very ugly

 

[OceanAnnie]

I'm not saying I don't agree with you, but the religious right wing would never let this happen. They won't even allow schools to teach safe sex or hand out condoms. They'd rather live with blinders on saying "preach abstinence" (since it has worked so well so far) Sorry for changing the topic, but the right wing is just so full of contradictions "Stop having babies, but don't teach sex ed". "We are pro-life, but let's go to war". "States should have the right to choose their laws, but don't let them allow gay marriage or legalize marijuana". I know there are lots of examples on the left too, but I am a little jaded in my view right now.

I don't think you can hang all of the country's problems on any one group. Plenty of contradictions to go around.

 

[disneymeces]

I'm sorry I know it's not funny, what they are doing is wrong...But I tease my hubby all the time abt divorcing him, and living off welfare (we have 4 kids). Life would sure be much easier as far as bills go...ROTFL! And he's a fed. employee! LOL!

 

[luvsJack]

You, I, and apparently your relatives know this. We KNOW it is no way to live, but many of my students and their parents don't know any other way. They have never been in anyone's house that lives a different way, and never seen anything but dependence on the system. They ARE taught that it is their way of life. I am not speculating or making any of this up. I have sat down at talked to these teens more times than I can count about just these issues. They really, truly do not believe that there is any other way of life open to them because it is what they and their parents have always known. They don't believe that there is any other way out there for them. They are going to live off the system, so it is pointless to bother trying to better themselves. If they are going to be geting government assistance, why bother. They honestly don't realize that their lives could be so different if they had marketable skills. The just do not see the value in it, or have any concept that there is a better way of life out there for them.

It is so sad that there are so many that don't think there is another way to live or that they have the idea that they cannot break out of the cycle.

That is one of the reasons that I believe education/training should be mandatory for anyone on assistance. It is one of the few things that I believe can be done without stepping on someone's beliefs, relegion, rights or freedoms.

 

[ssawka]

I don't think you can hang all of the country's problems on any one group. Plenty of contradictions to go around.

Absolutely! That's why I said "I know there are lots of examples on the left too", but it does seam to be the right that takes issue with the "aid programs".

 

[Muushka]

Absolutely! That's why I said "I know there are lots of examples on the left too", but it does seam to be the right that takes issue with the "aid programs".

Can we keep left and right out of this conversation, please?

 

[blanq]

...I would much rather pay for their kids to be in daycare while they work than to hand over more money for every baby they have so they don't make MORE money by staying home...

I am not going to say whether I agree or disagree with your statement, but I want to throw out something for you to think about. Your view was the prevailing view that lead to welfare reform in the mid 1990s. The government opted to put more money into child care assistance to encourage work. In my job I see instances where the county is paying $40,000 per year (and, no, that is not a typo) for someone to have their three young children in daycare so they can go to work at their $8.00 per hour job. (Granted, the hope is that eventually, this person would gain experience and be able to increase their wages and eventually not need daycare assistance). If this same family was on cash assistance, they would receive about $7,452 per year in cash assistance in my state. Knowing that, I am interested to know if you would still rather pay to have the kids in daycare?

 

[OceanAnnie]

Absolutely! That's why I said "I know there are lots of examples on the left too", but it does seam to be the right that take issue with the "aid programs".

I think the issue with "aid programs" is broad and complex.

Education is the key. There can't be programs without an incentive for those receiving them to be productive members of society. It destroys people. They don't reach their potential. It hurts society.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

There are soooo many issues with the welfare system it's hard to know where to even start. Living off of my tax dollars when you are fully capable of working irks me to no end. Continuing to have babies to get more money shouldn't be condoned by the state but that is what appears to be happening.

In my personal opinion (flame away on this one), I feel that anyone who is on state aid should be REQUIRED to be on birth control to even get their welfare check/food stamps/medical assistance. They should have to do drug tests, AND show proof of a depo shot or some sort of birth control administration by a doctor before they can even collect. And not just proof of a prescription of birth control pills...those won't work if you don't take them.

I would much rather pay for their kids to be in daycare while they work than to hand over more money for every baby they have so they don't make MORE money by staying home. I know it's a long shot, but seriously...the more babies they have the more money they get, that is INSANE.

At some point people have to be held responsible for their actions. I completely understand falling on hard times and needing TEMPORARY assistance, however lifelong assistance is uncalled for.

I won't flame you--but not everyone on Welfare is out to commit fraud.

The requirement would only apply to women and would violate Roe V Wade and thus be unconstitutional.

I'm all for combatting fraud--but within our present ways in this country, one cannot use unconstitutional means to fix it.

 

[chobie]

This type of slam will get this thread closed. And yes, you are a little jaded!

This whole thread is political and has been from the start. There was even a snotty comment about the "democrats agenda" which was apparently not reported. Political talk is against the rules.

 

[threecrazykids]

I won't flame you--but not everyone on Welfare is out to commit fraud.

The requirement would only apply to women and would violate Roe V Wade and thus be unconstitutional.

I'm all for combatting fraud--but within our present ways in this country, one cannot use unconstitutional means to fix it.

I'm not referring to what they are doing as fraud, really. What they are doing is perfectly legal...more babies = more money. And I'm ok with it only applying to women because women are the only ones who can GET pregnant. It's at least a start. I don't see how it's unconstitutional to put requirements on obtaining government assistance. It's a simple if/then. IF you want assistance from the government/taxpayers THEN you will follow the rules and regulations of the program. If you don't believe in this for religious reasons (or whatever excuse you come up with) etc. then you aren't eligible, period. It really ISN'T that complicated, people just choose to make it that way. And honestly, if you are actually NEEDING assistance you will be more than happy to comply with the requirements of obtaining it. If you don't...then sorry.

 

[threecrazykids]

I am not going to say whether I agree or disagree with your statement, but I want to throw out something for you to think about. Your view was the prevailing view that lead to welfare reform in the mid 1990s. The government opted to put more money into child care assistance to encourage work. In my job I see instances where the county is paying $40,000 per year (and, no, that is not a typo) for someone to have their three young children in daycare so they can go to work at their $8.00 per hour job. (Granted, the hope is that eventually, this person would gain experience and be able to increase their wages and eventually not need daycare assistance). If this same family was on cash assistance, they would receive about $7,452 per year in cash assistance in my state. Knowing that, I am interested to know if you would still rather pay to have the kids in daycare?

I know exactly what you are saying...overall the cost is much greater for daycare. I just somehow feel better knowing that the parent is working and not just sitting home doing nothing. I know $$ wise it doesn't make sense, but morally I just don't know how to fix it

 

[luvsJack]

I'm not referring to what they are doing as fraud, really. What they are doing is perfectly legal...more babies = more money. And I'm ok with it only applying to women because women are the only ones who can GET pregnant. It's at least a start. I don't see how it's unconstitutional to put requirements on obtaining government assistance. It's a simple if/then. IF you want assistance from the government/taxpayers THEN you will follow the rules and regulations of the program. If you don't believe in this for religious reasons (or whatever excuse you come up with) etc. then you aren't eligible, period. It really ISN'T that complicated, people just choose to make it that way. And honestly, if you are actually NEEDING assistance you will be more than happy to comply with the requirements of obtaining it. If you don't...then sorry.

Wasn't it already posted that they DON'T get more money when they have another child? Section 8 may or may not allow them to have another bedroom and they may get a few more food stamps but not more cash money.

And, btw, I would NOT be ok with a requirement only on women. What are we doing, moving backwards?? That would be totally sexist! Men may not get pregnant but they sure have to be around for it to happen and they should take the responsiblity too.

Education is most definitly the key, not forcing someone to take birth control (which btw, can fail) And religious freedom is pretty prevalent in this country so you cannot force someone to do something against their religion whether you believe them to be practicing that religion or not.