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

[bimshire]

The taxes RIPPED from our paychecks to fund many of these social programs ain't so grand either

First, I think that everyone should work to lift themselves out of poverty and support themselves.

However, I am always amazed by the negative emotional verbiage that's expressed towards the poor on welfare.

Yet, $millions, if not $billions of our taxes, are wasted on corporate welfare, in Iraq, a bridge to nowhere, and given to other countries in aid that are quite capable of taking care of their own. Where is the outrage?

 

[Snoopymom]

No, because as a foster-to-adopt mom, I learned that most don't even use the free assistance available FOR THEIR KIDS.

 

[ducklite]

First, I think that everyone should work to lift themselves out of poverty and support themselves.

However, I am always amazed by the negative emotional verbiage that's expressed towards the poor on welfare.

Yet, $millions, if not $billions of our taxes, are wasted on corporate welfare, in Iraq, a bridge to nowhere, and given to other countries in aid that are quite capable of taking care of their own. Where is the outrage?

I'm outraged about all of that as well. I show it when I vote. And I'm hoping that over the next few years we do a lot of housecleaning in the ranks of our elected officials, because for the most part they're a bunch of idiots who are chasing their own personal agendas rather than the wishes of those who put them in office.

Anne

 

[Chloe'sMom]

WIC is for low income families. The internet rates are pretty reasonable now. I don't know about you, but I'm paying $10/mo for internet service. Don't forget, you can always use the internet at the library.

I completely agree - you can get internet service for $10.00 a month - but that is $10.00 you could put towards buying your own milk!

My now SIL was on assistance for awhile - so I do not think we should do away with it completely. But the fact was she NEEDED the assistance. She had a job, was a single mom where the dad was trown into jail, and she certainly wasn't taking Disney Vacations or had internet access!

~Amanda

 

[shortbun]

What we are discussing is far from legislating how many children a person is allowed. We're simply cutting off the funding so the people popping them out to get more money will stop.



There are people of every race receiving aid and abusing the system. I can't believe you are going to try and imply this is a race issue.

Hey, we disagree. I can't believe you are denying that this is a superiority/race issue for most people. No one is totally free of prejudice. And how do you PROVE that someone 'popped out' a child to get more money? Lie detector tests? You are going to require poor people to abstain from sex or get sterlized? The other methods of birth control are not perfect. Yep, BIG BROTHER for sure. Btw, I agree with you that it would be nice if people stopped having children that they could not support. However, there are all sorts of privacy issues, religious beliefs and other problems associated with legislating this concept in any way.

 

[autumnbaby9]

I don't think they should, however I don't see how we can stop them without penalizing the children who didn't ask to be born.

In the case of recieving welfare and not working I think they need to set it up like they do unemployment. I don't know about other areas but here you have to show that you are activily trying to find a job to continue to recieve the UE money.

IMO if you have no job, are not looking for a job, or don't have a REALLY GOOD reason why you can't work (medical) they need to take away the Welfare payments.

It also wouldn't hurt if food stamps were set up more like WIC. Make it to were only the healthy options are allowed to be purchased. They already can't buy alcohol so I can't see why we can't expand the list to include junk food.

 

[shortbun]

No, because as a foster-to-adopt mom, I learned that most don't even use the free assistance available FOR THEIR KIDS.

I know that's right. They don't want to, they don't know how or they are not capable of doing it for some reason-depression, addiction, abuse, extreme poverty and so forth.

 

[poohandwendy]

However, there are all sorts of privacy issues, religious beliefs and other problems associated with legislating this concept in any way.

Actually, not really. Welfare is a policy that can be changed and SHOULD have requirements that make sense, it would not affect anyones basic human rights.

It's not about putting people in jail for having more children, they can continue to have them...but risk losing assistance. It's an incentive, not a punishment.

FWIW, I do not personally know anyone outside of my race (white) on welfare. My opinion is not in any way based on race.

 

[cardaway]

I can't believe you are denying that this is a superiority/race issue for most people.

Most? Yeah, I will deny that. There are racist people in this world but ebing on one of this topic does not make one a racist. There are people of every race abusing the system. Superiority? Superior to somebody that is abusing a system rather than using it as intened?

However, there are all sorts of privacy issues, religious beliefs and other problems associated with legislating this concept in any way.

You still have yet to explain how this would be a privacy issue. How does the government help if they can't come in and assess the situation?

 

[shortbun]

They're not supported by the government. They're supported by you and I and every other taxpayer.

You mean you wouldn't support BC as a requirement for assistance when there's clear evidence the woman can't keep her legs closed?

OK, if you don't support that, put the kids in foster care or , if you can get one to agree, the care of another relative/friend and the parent(s) in jail until they finally "get it". Yes, I'm advocating punishment. At some point there needs to be IMO.

1. We -'you and I and every other taxpayer' ARE the government.

2. I take extreme offense at this insensitive and sexist description of women. I find it incredible that this post was allowed to stand. In my opinion, anyone able to make this kind of general statement about women should steer clear of all women.

 

[minnieandme]

I know that's right. They don't want to, they don't know how or they are not capable of doing it for some reason-depression, addiction, abuse, extreme poverty and so forth.

Which is why I said they should be educated about the services they receive. They should be forced to take a class to learn to better themselves. They shouldn't rely on getting pa for the rest of their lives. Someone ought to show them that there's a whole world out there that they should be a part of. There's more to life than just sitting home doing nothing all day. If they have any kind of addiction, they should be able to get help for that as well.

 

[Chloe'sMom]

Hey, we disagree. I can't believe you are denying that this is a superiority/race issue for most people. No one is totally free of prejudice. And how do you PROVE that someone 'popped out' a child to get more money? Lie detector tests? You are going to require poor people to abstain from sex or get sterlized? The other methods of birth control are not perfect. Yep, BIG BROTHER for sure. Btw, I agree with you that it would be nice if people stopped having children that they could not support. However, there are all sorts of privacy issues, religious beliefs and other problems associated with legislating this concept in any way.

There is no way to prove that a woman/family popped out another child just for the money. However I do think there should be limits. Perhaps limit to 2 children, after that there is no more assistance. If people can't care for the extra children perhaps they should give their children up for adoption?

I don't know - I don't have all the answers. As I said it makes my stomach turn that there are people here on the DIS abusing the system and PLANNING child after child knowing that they will apply for assistance.

~Amanda

 

[poohandwendy]

2. I take extreme offense at this insensitive and sexist description of women. I find it incredible that this post was allowed to stand. In my opinion, anyone able to make this kind of general statement about women should steer clear of all women.

Oh come on. It's a description of SOME women, not all. That much was obvious. I am a woman and feel the exact same way about women who refuse to take personal responsibility for their reproductive tract and continue to have children when they do not possess the means to provide for them, especially when they are purposely having more children to work the system.

If you think they do not exist, you are deluding yourself.

 

[bimshire]

Too bad we can't pick where our taxes go. Just like you can pick your percentages if you donate to the United Way. I'd put the tiniest portion available into welfare etc, and put most of mine into schools and bridges/roads. Then we'd see exactly how many tax-paying people support welfare!

I could go along with this but it would never work. I voted NO on the new Jerry Jones Dallas Cowboys Stadium but I am still funding it every time I buy something. I feel he should build his own d**n stadium.

 

[Mouse House Mama]

I didn't read the whole thread but I personally think if you can't take care of what you have then you shouldn't make more. There are people who genuinely need help and I am all for it- BUT- don't start popping out more kids until you can afford to take care of your family without help. As far as birth control not working etc.- if you use it then it will work. Yes, sometimes it fails, but more often than not in these cases it fails because it is not used. JMHO.

 

[ducklite]

1. We -'you and I and every other taxpayer' ARE the government.

Exactly! And I, as a member of government, want to see financial aid to women who refuse to get off their pregnant butts and get a job cut off. Why should I go to work every day to pay for someone else's babymaking, crack smoking, system abusing habits? They should work like everybody else, and if they can't find a job we'll find one for them. I'm sure they'll be thrilled with shoveling manure at the county zoo, cleaning toilets in the courthouse, and picking up litter alongside the road.

2. I take extreme offense at this insensitive and sexist description of women. I find it incredible that this post was allowed to stand. In my opinion, anyone able to make this kind of general statement about women should steer clear of all women.

What's sexist? That women who can't support the kids they've already popped out should learn to keep their legs closed? I'm a woman and I feel that way. Like my father used to say, "Welfare is a headache this country has created, and the best way to cure the headache is two aspirin held firmly between the knees."

Anne

 

[mickeyfan2]

WIC is for low income families. The internet rates are pretty reasonable now. I don't know about you, but I'm paying $10/mo for internet service. Don't forget, you can always use the internet at the library.

When they state they don't have money in the budget for gas to go out everyday and they are on the internet all day so either they have it at home or they are at the library all day. So if they have it at home, then the could afford a computer and the internet. That would buy milk etc for the family. If they are at the library all day then GET A JOB, since you have so much free time on your hands.

 

[Charade]

I can't believe you are denying that this is a superiority/race issue for most people.

I am. You were the first (I believe) on this thread to bring up race.

And how do you PROVE that someone 'popped out' a child to get more money?

Don't have to. You get support for the current number of children you have when you apply. Any children born after that don't qualify for support.

 

[Tink&SquirtsMom]

I don't really know what should be done overall , but I do think we should be targeting the population of generational welfare recipients with specific programs designed to end that cycle. I don't have a ton of knowledge of the welfare system here, but have done some work with the extremely impoverished in Africa. One thing they are very successfully doing there is making changes in the children with such things as day programs. The children arrive in the morning and are provided a very nutritional meal. The children actively particpate in preparing, serving and cleaning up from the meal, they get their education, with a healthy lunch midday, afternoons are followed with group activites (often including therapeutic elements). They work on projects and learn specific skills that give a sense of accomplishment and can potentially earn them an income later in life. They contribute to everything they are given and rewarded based on their level of contribution.

Although they do those programs there for different reasons (usually lack of access to education, resources), I really think a similar program could be so beneficial to these kids whose parents are 2nd, 3rd, and sometimes even 4th generation welfare recipients. A) it takes the money largely out of the parents hands (who often misuse funds). The child is being fed at least 2 healthy, balanced meals at their program, which is enough to offset any cognitive effects of malnutrition (a real problem in some welfare families who do not feed their kids enough foods with nutritional value, or who stretch their money over too many kids). B) it gets the kids out of the house, so the parent is free to work an 8-5 shift or go through job training, and so the child has a daily stable environment with which to get a solid education, good nutrition, support, etc C)The child is in an environment which rewards hard work and effort, which is something they have likely not seen modeled in their own home (which is why we are seeing this generational problem) D)the child hears praise for a job well done and earns a feeling of accomplishment E)the afternoon group activites could include therapeutic elements which would help stop the cycle and teach personal responsibility F) the child learns a work ethic and life skills that they otherwise might not have G) the child would have a support group with the other kids in the program who understood their pressures (often a family who doesn't understand why they are working so hard) and were also working to rise out of their current situation

I'm not saying this would be cheap or easy and I am certainly NOT saying everyone (or even most) on welfare or who have used assitance at one time, fall into the categories I listed above (there is however a population who does). But we do need to be doing something to break this cycle of welfare families who raise their kids teaching them how to work the system, instead of teaching them to work hard to better their own situation. If we just stop the money, these children will suffer and will STILL be a financial drain on society just in some other way... possibly becoming foster children if parents can't support them, criminals, teen mothers, etc, etc. If we could somehow successfully break the cycle of the welfare "lifers" I think that would have the biggest impact on lowering the amount of financial and societal burden cast onto the responsible citizens.

I would also like to see more about personal responsibility and recognization of accomplishment for effort (not everyone) put back into public school education and more accountability of household budgets for people on government assistance (they should have to show where the money goes). I am someone who wholeheartedly supports many forms of welfare, which is why it makes me absolutely sick when I see someone on it and abusing it (and yes a trip to WDW while on govt assistance is abuse... except in cases like Ducklite gave where a family takes in someone elses child).

 

[CEDmom]

Hey, we disagree. I can't believe you are denying that this is a superiority/race issue for most people. No one is totally free of prejudice. And how do you PROVE that someone 'popped out' a child to get more money? Lie detector tests? You are going to require poor people to abstain from sex or get sterlized? The other methods of birth control are not perfect. Yep, BIG BROTHER for sure. Btw, I agree with you that it would be nice if people stopped having children that they could not support. However, there are all sorts of privacy issues, religious beliefs and other problems associated with legislating this concept in any way.

I don't care whether they popped another out to get more money. The fact that they popped it out when they can't care for the ones they have and require me to buy milk and diapers is what irks me. Take care of what you have here before you go looking for more. It's a pretty simple concept to grasp.