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

[CEDmom]

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.

I agree with you and I'm all for helping people who help themselves. That could be me one day and I'd like to believe someone would lend me a hand when in need.

However, you found a way to support yourself and provide a safe and loving home for your child. You didn't go have another one when you couldn't support your 1 without help.

I don't get those who are against preventing women from having additional children while receiving aid. Particularly if aid isn't increased. What about that poor child ?

 

[Ready to go in Ok]

I applaud you and I think others do as well for making sure these children get love, nuturing, food, clothing etc. What I and others have an issue with is your being ok if this woman decides to have another child. You see 1st hand what her behavior is doing to the children she has so where's the outrage at the thought she might have another ?

As far as what am I doing to make things better, I do work and have a child care for as well as a DH to keep happy. However since you asked, in my spare time I'm raising $1000 and training to bike 200 miles over 2 days in early Sept for the Rescue Mission and soup kitchen in our area. Both these organizations help adults get their lives together and offer support for families as well. So, I guess that's my small way of trying to make a difference. It takes all my free time to train (1700 miles since late April) for this but it's for a great cause and I've got buns of steel and rock hard thighs from all the training so it's a good trade off

Oh, and for the record I have one of those beautiful daughters from China. Unlike many birth mothers here her's made the responsible and very difficult decision to ensure her child had the life she could never give her. Not a day goes by that I don't give quiet thanks to this woman and pray that she somehow know her child is loved more than she can imagine. If more women realized their limitations and placed their babies up for adoption we wouldn't need to even have this discussion. I don't want to gov't to intervene but sometimes it needs to save people from their own stupidity and selfishness.

Kudos to you for what you do. You are working to address the issues that are truly important to you. I do the same. You happened to post what I perceived as a condescending attitude toward the population that has a spot in my heart. I have spent my career fighting for the indigent in one form or another. The prejudices that they face every day make me sad and angry. I work to make the changes that I think need to be made. Through education. Not by dictating what I believe to be true. By providing sound, best practice services as determined by my field.

I have never ever said that I am ok with people having children that they can't take care of. What I am saying is that my values are just that. Mine. I am not God, I am not all knowing. It is not up to me to tell you, or a mother on welfare that they should or should not have children. It's simply not my business. Again, this is just my opinion.

 

[taximomfor4]

I agree with you and I'm all for helping people who help themselves. That could be me one day and I'd like to believe someone would lend me a hand when in need.

However, you found a way to support yourself and provide a safe and loving home for your child. You didn't go have another one when you couldn't support your 1 without help.

I don't get those who are against preventing women from having additional children while receiving aid. Particularly if aid isn't increased. What about that poor child ?

Well, the few I personally know who do this (no, they are not my friends. Ack) don't keep their other kids. They have another baby, the fathers, aunts, grandparents, etc take the previous kid while mom just keeps the newborn....till another pregnancy. Then the cycle continues. Apparently the kids become Hand Me Downs when mom gets a newer model.

 

[cardaway]

I don't get those who are against preventing women from having additional children while receiving aid. Particularly if aid isn't increased. What about that poor child ?

What about the children of the families having to pay into the system? Not all those famililes have more money to give up either. Why should their children have less money in their household?

Parents should be the only ones responsible for their kids IMO. Parents should be able to take care of their own first and give any extra to charity without anybody else telling them how much they have to give.

 

[CEDmom]

What about the children of the families having to pay into the system? Not all those famililes have more money to give up either. Why should their children have less money in their household?

Parents should be the only ones responsible for their kids IMO. Parents should be able to take care of their own first and give any extra to charity without anybody else telling them how much they have to give.

I agree to a point. I think there has a be a temporary safety net for those that find themselve in need. By the grace of God that is not you or me or many people on this board but it could be. My whole point is don't compound the situation by bringing another living being into it. If someone cannot understand the reasoning behind that than they need some help in doing so.

I'm not trying to play God just being a realist.

 

[Charade]

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.

Assuming that's true across the entire US, doesn't that bother you because you said you cannot bear to see innocent children suffer?

There is an "incentive" for having more children on the WIC program here in PA. The more kids you have, the more assistance you get.

Family Size: Weekly: Bi-Weekly: Twice Monthly: Monthly: Annually:
1 $364 $727 $788 $1,575 $18,889
2 $488 $975 $1,056 $2,111 $25,327
3 $611 $1,222 $1,324 $2,648 $31,765
4 $735 $1,470 $1,592 $3,184 $38,203
5 $859 $1,717 $1,861 $3,721 $44,641
6 $983 $1,965 $2,129 $4,257 $51,079
7 $1,107 $2,213 $2,397 $4,794 $57,517
8 $1,230 $2,460 $2,665 $5,330 $63,955
For each additional family member, add:
$124 $248 $269 $537 $6,438

Also,

WIC does not require proof of citizenship.

WIC is federally funded.

 

[cardaway]

I agree to a point. I think there has a be a temporary safety net for those that find themselve in need.

I agree with safety nets. That's why people donate to charities or their church. It shouldn't be why are taxes are increased, especially as long as there are not measures in place to make sure people receiving handouts don't choose to increase their burden.

 

[Fitswimmer]

I don't think anyone here has an objection to helping someone out who has "fallen on hard times" as my Dad says. The whole idea of these types of benefits was exactly that-to help someone who was having difficulty get back on their feet. They were never intended to be passed down through the generations. We have families that come to our food pantry who are THIRD generation unemployed welfare receipients. They don't work, their parents didn't work and their grandparents didn't work. Maybe the first generation had an illness or disability that prevented them from working-but that shouldn't have stopped the following two!!

If you grow up in a family where nobody has ever held a job-where do you get a work ethic?

 

[Lisa_M]

Assuming that's true across the entire US, doesn't that bother you because you said you cannot bear to see innocent children suffer?

There is an "incentive" for having more children on the WIC program here in PA. The more kids you have, the more assistance you get.

Family Size: Weekly: Bi-Weekly: Twice Monthly: Monthly: Annually:
1 $364 $727 $788 $1,575 $18,889
2 $488 $975 $1,056 $2,111 $25,327
3 $611 $1,222 $1,324 $2,648 $31,765
4 $735 $1,470 $1,592 $3,184 $38,203
5 $859 $1,717 $1,861 $3,721 $44,641
6 $983 $1,965 $2,129 $4,257 $51,079
7 $1,107 $2,213 $2,397 $4,794 $57,517
8 $1,230 $2,460 $2,665 $5,330 $63,955
For each additional family member, add:
$124 $248 $269 $537 $6,438

Also,

WIC does not require proof of citizenship.

WIC is federally funded.

Those are the qualification requirements for family income based on family size, not the benefits. I'm not sure exactly how much benefits are given, but this is the food list that they subsidize:
Milk (regular and lactose-free as required)
100% fruit and/or vegetable juice
Peanut Butter
Cheese
Eggs
Dried Beans and Peas
Cereal
Infant Iron-fortified Formula
Infant Iron-fortified Cereal
100% unsweetened Juice
Carrots and Canned Tuna Fish in water for breastfeeding moms

 

[Charade]

Those are the qualification requirements for family income based on family size, not the benefits.

I'm aware of that. I couldn't find the value of the benefit. But you get more aid if you have more kids as long as you meet the requirements.

 

[punkin]

I'm aware of that. I couldn't find the value of the benefit. But you get more aid if you have more kids as long as you meet the requirements.

None of that means you kept having kids while you were on assistance. It means you have a certain number of people in your family and you have a certain income. The people in your household could be your disabled brother, your elderly parents, you and your PG wife who can't work because she is on bed rest. There you have 5 people and the wife qualifies for WIC as long as your annual income doesn't exceed $44,641.

 

[Ready to go in Ok]

I'm aware of that. I couldn't find the value of the benefit. But you get more aid if you have more kids as long as you meet the requirements.

And you won't be able to. WIC, unlike other assistance, gives you a voucher listing items you can buy. The monetary value depends on the cost at the store which varies. You have to buy the cheapest available. If you'll notice, most grocery stores have a WIC sticker on qualifying products. So, the monetary value here in Tulsa would be much less than in say NYC where things cost more. It is true that your eligibility is based on family size and income, so the bigger the family, the easier it would be to qualify. However, assistance is only given to children 5 and under and breastfeeding/pregnant mothers. Unless there is a medical necessity that would extend the assistance.

 

[Charade]

None of that means you kept having kids while you were on assistance. It means you have a certain number of people in your family and you have a certain income. The people in your household could be your disabled brother, your elderly parents, you and your PG wife who can't work because she is on bed rest. There you have 5 people and the wife qualifies for WIC as long as your annual income doesn't exceed $44,641.

None of it means they didn't either. If they didn't, that's great. But if they did, that's what some people are upset with.

 

[tw1nsmom]

I don't get those who are against preventing women from having additional children while receiving aid. Particularly if aid isn't increased. What about that poor child ?

I don't want women who are receiving aid to have more children. I just don't want it legislated. I have no problem with birth control education being a part of receiving aid. I have no problem with women (and men) being OFFERED and even encouraged to use free birth control. I do have a problem with it being a requirement.

I work as a volunteer special education advocate. I also have a DS with special needs. I've seen first hand how a law that seems to have nothing to do with one group of people is turned around and used against the later on.

I don't want the government to legislate anyone's reproductive rights.

Maybe (or maybe not...I'm not pretending to have a true answer) a solution would be to not give any able bodied adult any money. Provide them with a place to live for them and their children and provide the children with food at an outside agency. I mentioned before that the programs could be run through the schools (or at separate soup kitchen type sites), and the children given breakfast, lunch, and dinner. If the able bodied adults wanted to eat they would have to get a job. They also wouldn't be receiving subsidies for their children that they could misappropriate. Or...only do this with the people that do end up having more children within the system or appear to be chronic abusers. Save the foodstamps for the people who are temporarily in need and make sure that all the children are fed.

 

[punkin]

None of it means they didn't either. If they didn't, that's great. But if they did, that's what some people are upset with.

So if it doesn't mean they did and it doesn't mean they didn't, what exactly does it mean? I guess I just don't get your point. You brought up WIC to prove something which it doesn't prove, so...?

 

[punkin]

I don't want women who are receiving aid to have more children. I just don't want it legislated. I have no problem with birth control education being a part of receiving aid. I have no problem with women (and men) being OFFERED and even encouraged to use free birth control. I do have a problem with it being a requirement.

I work as a volunteer special education advocate. I also have a DS with special needs. I've seen first hand how a law that seems to have nothing to do with one group of people is turned around and used against the later on.

I don't want the government to legislate anyone's reproductive rights.

I completely agree with you.

 

[shirleyb]

Well, I'm late to this party, but I agree with the OP.

I have 3 kids and stopped there, because I certainly couldn't afford any more than that.

DH and I both work, and I wonder if we'd have to if our tax burden wasn't so high.

It is the height of irresponsibility to think that others should pay for feeding and clothing your children.

 

[Christopher Robin]

I think there is a HUGE difference between the govt legislating reproductive rights and the govt simply not paying someone cash (or more cash) when they have a kid while receiving a govt handout.

 

[poohandwendy]

I don't want the government to legislate anyone's reproductive rights.

I don't either.

BUT, I am having a hard time understanding how requiring birth control when receiving assistance equals legislating reproductive rights. The govt would not be saying you cannot have any more children at all, it would be saying you cannot have more children only while on assistance. I don't think that is too invasive. Why shouldn't there be accountability when it comes to receiving assistance?

 

[Charade]

So if it doesn't mean they did and it doesn't mean they didn't, what exactly does it mean? I guess I just don't get your point. You brought up WIC to prove something which it doesn't prove, so...?

It's not a definitive do or don't. It can be either or depending on the situation. I mentioned WIC because someone else said welfare assistance doesnt' increase when new children are born to families on are already on assistance. Obviously it can under the WIC program.