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

[froglady]

I don't suppose I should pop in here and say it's nobody's business?

We pay taxes for the privilege of a civilized society - and we get to elect our representatives - but we don't get to say how every penny is spent, and we can't tell people how to live their lives.

In a perfect world everyone would be responsible and there would be no problems. But then we wouldn't have anything to talk about on the DIS!!

But why is it OK for the government to tell me how to live MY life; ie give me as much money as "I" (the government) say you owe me, or go to jail?

As so many have stated, most of us have no problem helping out those who have made a "mistake" or find themselves in financial difficulty through no fault of their own. The question was, once someone is in that position, is it right for the government to take money, by force, from more responsible taxpayers to enable someone to continue with behavior that only makes the situation worse?

 

[ducklite]

Well as many of you know i believe in being direct and not beating around the bush, to the op what business is it of yours and why do you care? Now sure you will go into the whole i pay my taxes bit etc... and hey don't most of us but a big problem in this world is so many people passing judgement and minding other peoples business. The states set the criteria of who gets assistance, i work for the state here and the governor has just revised the household amounts for families who qualify for medical assistance from the state for their children. IF a person is working and they qualify for assistance then they should be entitled to it. If they decide to save their money to take their kids to disney world they God Bless them. Going to disney can be quite affordable if people plan, research and save. Again it really is none of our business.

I couldn't disagree more. As long as my taxes are subsidizing people's livelihood, then I do have a say in how they are spent. Anyone who has enough money for a WDW trip should have their monthly payment cut, as they are obviously receiving more than they need to survive. And IMHO survival is all people on public assistance are entitled to. If they want more in thier life, they can work for it like the rest of us stiffs.

Anne

 

[ducklite]

have to ask-

those who have chosen not to receive ssi for their disabled children (not those who know they are not income eligible and have either been denied or opted not to apply), given that with ssi after a period of 6 months comes medical coverage, which contractualy caps the provider to a predetermined amount for billing services, an amount markedly lower than convential private insurance pays-have you considered that by carrying your child on assumably yourself/spouse's employer subsidized healthcare-if that child has very costly medical expenses, that child's expenses may be contributing to higher costs for other members/employees such that they may be unable to afford premiums and seek gov. asst. medical care?

i understand the concepts of personal choice and self reliance, but if the argument is the cost to taxpayers due to persons receiving gov. sponsored med assistance-it seems the same argument could be made by an employee whose co-worker utilizes a medical plan such that premiums raise for all-when lower cost alternatives are available (and i can say that with some gov. med programs the more participants the lower the cost to the taxpayer-i did outreach efforts to solicit participants in order to increase particpant numbers but overall reduce taxpayer costs).

We didn't apply because we've always been able to provide for our son. He's now an adult, although I have permanent legal guardianship of his medical decisions. He works for a company that offers a good health insurance plan that carries prescription coverage, so his medical bills are very manageable. (He's able to pay all of his co-pays out of his paycheck.)

We just don't believe in taking from taxpayers when there are other options. It's a matter of personal responsibility.

Anne

 

[meandtheguys2]

What bugs me is that some people get upset about being taxed to help impoverished children, but don't seem to make much of a peep to the corporate welfare handed out to, for example, oil companies that make billions in profits.

I don't mind paying taxes at all for impoverished children. I happily donate as much as possible to several charities that help alleviate hunger, provide clean water, shelter and education. But a child taking extravagent vacations is not impoverished.

 

[TinkerbellMama]

IMO the answer is a very clear NO. I would be happy to see the laws change that keep it from happening, and then watch the number of pregnancies dive when people know there will be no increase coming.

Except that some people are so screwed up they will continue to pop out kids they cannot support financially or emotionally, and then the poor kids suffer. Some people are just that selfish. I agree with the idea that any assistance should be short-term and as-needed ONLY, but I also think it should be voluntarily given. I HATE the socialist programs we have in this country and know we could do so much better if our "tax" money wasn't stolen by the government and redistributed without our consent.

 

[TinkerbellMama]

wow. that is an amazing statistic.

If 45% of all the infants born in the United States are at a nutritional risk, we are really doing a crappy job in the US in educating people on proper nutrition.

If everyone (or nearly everyone) breastfed their babies, this wouldn't be an issue at all for infants.

How's THAT for fueling the thread drama? But I am dead serious, so I'll let it stand.

 

[ChrisLei]

I don't believe anyone should dictate how many children one has, but I do believe strongly that the government should have a cap on how much money they provide for assistance.

 

[CEDmom]

What bugs me is that some people get upset about being taxed to help impoverished children, but don't seem to make much of a peep to the corporate welfare handed out to, for example, oil companies that make billions in profits.

I think you may be missing the point. I don't know anyone that wouldn't help an improverished child. My concern is trying to prevent more children from being brought into that situation. If their own mothers don't care about bringing them into a world where they are unable to care for them someone needs to step in and take over.

I'm not disagreeing that there's waste and mismanagement all over the place but right here we're focusing on preventing children from living a life of proverty and need.

 

[bookgirl]

Bad bad poor people you don't deserve Mickey Mouse, get back to the concrete playground with the broken swings and rats where you belong.

I couldn't resist.

No matter what I think about how people live or what I might do to reform welfare and world population, I won't even go on the slippery slope of what someone on assistance is "allowed". Really someone even got on to a poster about buying a zoo pass (which in my town is like 65 bucks for a whole family) while recieving help. I think this really is a bad debate subject to get into. There is no moral high ground when you are judging someone else. Maybe it's time to shut this thread down and move on, everyone seems to running in circles.

 

[ducklite]

Bad bad poor people you don't deserve Mickey Mouse, get back to the concrete playground with the broken swings and rats where you belong.

I couldn't resist.

No matter what I think about how people live or what I might do to reform welfare and world population, I won't even go on the slippery slope of what someone on assistance is "allowed". Really someone even got on to a poster about buying a zoo pass (which in my town is like 65 bucks for a whole family) while recieving help. I think this really is a bad debate subject to get into. There is no moral high ground when you are judging someone else. Maybe it's time to shut this thread down and move on, everyone seems to running in circles.

IMHO there's a big difference between a $65 year annual pass for a famiy to go to the zoo, and a trip to WDW that pretty much can't be done for under$2000 (and a lot more than that if you're staying at a deuxe, which some of the people on this thread who are collecting assistance are doing!)--which is a lot of food stamps, AFDC, HEAP, and WIC checks. If someone has that much money to spare, then stop taking the assistance--except in the case where the child getting the assistance is a foster chid, special needs adoptive child, or disabed with high medical needs.

I'm not judging the choice to have a large family as long as you can care for your children and give each child personal attention, but it's a problem when you're popping out kids at the expense of the taxpayer.

Anne

 

[aprilgail2]

[QUOTE="Got Disney";20259037]My niece went to a baby shower today for her best friends sister and she has been on welfare for 6 years. She is having her 4th boy and said she will not stop till they have a girl...she is 26 sorry but that does bug me.[/QUOTE]

I just went to a shower like that!! Only difference was that they wouldn't stop until they had a boy...thank goodness this one was a boy. But the husband doesn't work, the grandmother had custody of the 2 oldest ones for 7 years....I just don't enderstand why people would want to put themselves in that position. I can't imagine wanting to keep having kids I can't afford to feed, clothe or afford to put through college!!!

 

[katiebsmom]

I just don't understand settling for mediocrity in life. I'm from MS and the welfare system is a way of life that most of the rural communities hand down like a tradition from generation to generation. They've grown accustomed to being able to survive on the tiny checks and food stamps that they are given and they are mighty happy with that as long as they can keep "having their fun" and not having to go to work during the day. I can't understand why any human wouldn't want to further their education and get the heck out of the cycle. I know that sometimes (ie. single parents, etc) can't because there is no other way or no other circumstances, but geeze, I think I'd try to work three jobs (as I do now...EVEN WITH HUBBY WORKING LOL!!!) and change circumstances before bringing more kiddos into the world.

 

[fabshelly]

I don't mind paying taxes at all for impoverished children. I happily donate as much as possible to several charities that help alleviate hunger, provide clean water, shelter and education. But a child taking extravagent vacations is not impoverished.

I'm trying to figure out in my quote where I said that I thought people on welfare should be going to WDW.

I didn't.

In fact, I believe that they shouldn't. VERY strongly. I'm a single mom, work my butt off, and can't afford WDW. So, I save up money until I can. It's gonna be a while.

My issue is with people who want to deny basic living needs to children because their parents are idiots, but think it's all well and good to give tax breaks to corporations that are raking in megabucks anyway.

 

[Tomader]

I work in a hospital in the labor and delivery unit. I see so many women coming in not married and on Public assistance. The majority of them are young and have other children. I think one child can happen after that they should be charged some type of fee. If they are going to continue having kids and letting welfare pay then they should be charged. I bet they would think twice before having more. It is so sad to see these babies going home to who knows what. So if you can't work and you have to receive assistance then you should not be allowed more than one child. Welfare is too easy for these people.

 

[meandtheguys2]

I'm trying to figure out in my quote where I said that I thought people on welfare should be going to WDW.

I didn't.

In fact, I believe that they shouldn't. VERY strongly. I'm a single mom, work my butt off, and can't afford WDW. So, I save up money until I can. It's gonna be a while.

My issue is with people who want to deny basic living needs to children because their parents are idiots, but think it's all well and good to give tax breaks to corporations that are raking in megabucks anyway.

Sorry, I occasionally befuddle the quotes and quotees!