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

[Charade]

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?

 

[disneyrun]

I understand the sentiment that it's hard to see people have more children than you can and be supported by the government. However these kids would be the one who would suffer. I'm against legislating anything about a woman's body.

 

[CEDmom]

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?

This is exactly what I'm trying to say.

 

[Lisa_M]

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?

What about those who become pregnant and then need assistance? Obviously, you can't make them take birth control. I don't know what the answer is, it's so disheartening that people continue to procreate while not being able to afford the ones that are already here.

It's very ironic that I saw this thread today. I was talking with my mom last night and she mentioned that two 14 year old girls in my sister's 8th grade class last year became pregnant and one was pregnant with twins. Both of these girls are children of the "system." Last year, I also counseled an orphaned teenager, who while in foster care had 2 children and became pregnant with her 3rd by age 17. Obviously, the system is flawed and there are abuses, but something has to be done. I don't exactly know what, maybe it's increased education, maybe it's demanding accountability for one's actions, but I don't think forcing birth control on women is the way to go. Perhaps we should discuss forcing sterilization on men that continually impregnate these girls and women and move on. Since it's regarding men, I'm sure that would never even be a consideration. The government dictating one's reproductive rights is a slippery slope and one that I hope doesn't occur.

 

[poohandwendy]

I understand the sentiment that it's hard to see people have more children than you can and be supported by the governemnt. However these kids would be the one who would suffer.

If we are going to talk about children suffering, why not mention that the children suffer when the parents decide to continue having MORE children when they cannot provide for the ones they have? Or that the children are more likely to live a more impoverished life if their parents continue to have more children they cannot provide for? Or that the parents will be less able to independently care for their children if they continue to have children while on assistance?

How about the responsibilities they have to the children already born? How about the needs of the kids who are already here and stuck in poverty?

 

[poohandwendy]

What about those who become pregnant and then need assistance? Obviously, you can't make them take birth control. I don't know what the answer is, it's so disheartening that people continue to procreate while not being able to afford the ones that are already here.

I am not talking about what people do before getting on assistance, I am talking about responsibility while on assistance.

 

[poohandwendy]

The problem I have with the argument that we are leaving kids to starve if we make specific requirements of their parents (including but not limited to birth control) is that we ignore another responsibility in using the 'village to raise the child' method when we neglect to see the importance in instilling the value of financial independence in children who are at risk. That anything free is not appreciated or respected in the same way as when you earn it.

IMO, govt assistance should come with a price and that is effort. I believe that every able bodied person receiving assistance should be required to put in 40 hours of service per week to receive it. This could be implemented in many ways.

1) Continuing education would be considered part of the 40 hours.
2) Babysitting other recipients children while they work or go to school
3) There are tons of things that need to be done in this country, why are we not using welfare recipients as a resource?

There are many more ways people could 'earn' the help they need and also have the incentive to get a job. There is no reason people who receive assistance cannot or should not be contributing to the society that is helping them.

Having the recipents work for the assistance has multiple benefits:

1) No one can call it a hand-out if it is earned
2) Children are raised seeing that you have to work to get anything in life
3) Added incentive to get a 'real' job.

Before someone says "we don't have the resources to implement such a program"...actually, we do. We have millions of resources, the assistance recipients, we just don't expect anything from them right now.

 

[darlak]

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

You are clearly much better versed on this topic than I am. I don't claim to know the exact criteria used by my own state, much less other states. I do know that at any given point in time, I am working with 50-80 families, with many of them being generational users of public assistance. Most of these mothers are no longer receiving monetary benefits for themselves, but they are receiving from $96 to $160 per child per month. Each child gets their own check, with the mother usually as the payee. Although that amount is influenced by the number of children they have, they are still showing an overall increase per month when they have additional children.

Regarding the food stamps (fs), families of 4 in my caseload are typically receiving approx. $600 per month if their only "income" is public assistance, ie; AFDC and public housing (either in a public housing apt. complex or Section 8 housing). When the court grants custody of a child to a relative, we always give a certified copy of the court order to the new custodian so that they can enroll the child in school, get medical treatment, etc. The one place where they never need that certified copy is at the food stamp office. Our local fs office has stated that they are not concerned with whether the person receiving the fs has legal custody, they are only concerned with the number of people who are reported to live in the household. They do sometimes (rarely!) do their own investigation into reported cases of welfare fraud and if they find fraud, the household can be restricted from receiving fs at all for an extended period of time.

In my experience, most people who are cheating the system are only too happy to share their "skills", if they do not believe that you are a direct threat to their benefits. There are small mom and pop type stores all over my city where they can use their fs debit card to acquire cigarettes, alcohol, and even cash. A carton of cigarettes typically cost them $50-$55 dollars in fs. However, since they are not strictly required to show proof of household composition, they can be receiving enough fs to easily allow them to use enough of their fs for these type of purchases on a weekly basis.

Welfare fraud is happening every day in my state, as I suspect it is in all states. Our current system is not even curbing the problem. I don't know the answers, but I know we must find a way to stop the theft without allowing children to go hungry. Because child welfare is my field, I can never advocate for allowing a child to go hungry.

As I said, I don't know where we begin to stop welfare fraud, but I know that it won't be with me if it must be done at the expense of the children in my caseload.

 

[cardaway]

If we are going to talk about children suffering, why not mention that the children suffer when the parents decide to continue having MORE children when they cannot provide for the ones they have? Or that the children are more likely to live a more impoverished life if their parents continue to have more children they cannot provide for? Or that the parents will be less able to independently care for their children if they continue to have children while on assistance?

How about the responsibilities they have to the children already born? How about the needs of the kids who are already here and stuck in poverty?

Well said.

If you're going to point fingers, start with the ONLY ones directly responsible for taking away money from their other kids.

 

[luv2crash]

Finding this discussion late but here are my thoughts and experiences...

I don't believe that the Government should mandate how many children anyone can have. That being said they COULD and should mandate how many we will pay for.

Welfare fraud is rampant in Alabama.

Years ago, I worked for a hospital and I interviewed "charity" cases to see if they were eligible for the hospital to "write off" the remainer of the bill if they had exceeded their medicaid visits. Anyway, in an interview with a patient, I was asking about her income and she told me that she "gets paid for my kids". When I asked if she was married she told me that "no, I never married their fathers because I wouldn't get paid for my kids, my babies daddy does "stay" at my house."

I was also on the benevolence committee at our church. We had a new family in the area and the mother came to church one night and said that she needed money to put gas in her car so she could go to the doctor because she had CANCER and didn't have enough gas to get to b'ham. I personally followed her to the local store where I have a charge account and let her charge her gas. Then she called me at home and told me that she didn't have enough groceries to last until she got more food stamps. Because this was a Monday and we wouldn't meet at church again until Wednesday, I went to the store and personally bought this family groceries. I took a large bag of chicken legs, a pot roast, gallon of milk, cheese, various canned veggies, a bag of potatoes and I also included treats for the kids (ice cream and some little debbie snack cakes). When I got to the house and we were unloading the groceries (the kitchen had plenty) she told me no thanks for the chicken legs, they only eat chicken breasts and the kids really won't eat the veggies so you can take those home too!!!

Come to find out this woman did NOT have cancer and she had gone all over town to EVERY church asking for cash hand outs. At least I didn't give her cash. VERY, VERY SAD. She was later arrested for drug possession.

I know that these 2 cases are not an indication of every family that receives assistance but it really makes me skeptical now when I am asked to help. I still do though.

Sorry for the long post.

 

[Charade]

I understand the sentiment that it's hard to see people have more children than you can and be supported by the government. However these kids would be the one who would suffer. I'm against legislating anything about a woman's body.

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.

 

[minnieandme]

Welfare fraud is happening every day in my state, as I suspect it is in all states. Our current system is not even curbing the problem. I don't know the answers, but I know we must find a way to stop the theft without allowing children to go hungry. Because child welfare is my field, I can never advocate for allowing a child to go hungry.

As I said, I don't know where we begin to stop welfare fraud, but I know that it won't be with me if it must be done at the expense of the children in my caseload.

This is why we need to better educate our children in schools. They should have some type of class in hs that will teach them how to apply for a job, how to dress for the interview, practice interviews. When you have someone that wants to work, they appreciate things a whole lot more than someone who just sits at home and waits for a check. If we start with the children, maybe the next generation of welfare recepients will be few and far between.

 

[Charade]

I completely agree with you.

If a woman has the right to unrestricted reproduction, she also has the obligation to take care of whatever she produces. I believe the government has the right and the obligation to make sure that happens. If that means requiring BC as part of the requirements to receive assistance, then so be it.

I'm really curious. What level of responsibility do you believe an otherwise healthy woman has when they produce offspring they can't afford to take care of? And then continue to do so even when they get assistance?

You can't force abortions.
You can't force adoptions.
You can't take the kids away.
You can't force others to mind these kids.

But you can force the taxpayers to foot the bill for irresponsible behavior when it's such and easy thing to prevent. I believe they finally figured out what causes babies to come out of a womans body.

 

[Charade]

The problem I have with the argument that we are leaving kids to starve if we make specific requirements of their parents (including but not limited to birth control) is that we ignore another responsibility in using the 'village to raise the child' method when we neglect to see the importance in instilling the value of financial independence in children who are at risk. That anything free is not appreciated or respected in the same way as when you earn it.

IMO, govt assistance should come with a price and that is effort. I believe that every able bodied person receiving assistance should be required to put in 40 hours of service per week to receive it. This could be implemented in many ways.

1) Continuing education would be considered part of the 40 hours.
2) Babysitting other recipients children while they work or go to school
3) There are tons of things that need to be done in this country, why are we not using welfare recipients as a resource?

There are many more ways people could 'earn' the help they need and also have the incentive to get a job. There is no reason people who receive assistance cannot or should not be contributing to the society that is helping them.

Having the recipents work for the assistance has multiple benefits:

1) No one can call it a hand-out if it is earned
2) Children are raised seeing that you have to work to get anything in life
3) Added incentive to get a 'real' job.

Before someone says "we don't have the resources to implement such a program"...actually, we do. We have millions of resources, the assistance recipients, we just don't expect anything from them right now.

Works for me.

(I'm channeling the ACLU) But forcing people to work for a rightful benefit is against their civil liberties. You can't just force (able bodied) people to work if they don't want to. They are legally entitled to assistance with very little strings attached.

 

[ducklite]

Works for me.

(I'm channeling the ACLU) But forcing people to work for a rightful benefit is against their civil liberties. You can't just force (able bodied) people to work if they don't want to. They are legally entitled to assistance with very little strings attached.

While there might be "policy," there isn't law that entitles anyone to welfare payments with no strings attached. The policies need to change so that people are given a hand up, not a hand out, and are made to take responsibility for themselves. Sometimes tough love is the best love.

Anne

 

[ducklite]

This is why we need to better educate our children in schools. They should have some type of class in hs that will teach them how to apply for a job, how to dress for the interview, practice interviews. When you have someone that wants to work, they appreciate things a whole lot more than someone who just sits at home and waits for a check. If we start with the children, maybe the next generation of welfare recepients will be few and far between.

At my sons high school all seniors were required to take a class called "Life Skills."

They learned how to fill out a tax return (a 1040EZ), fill out a job application, balance a check book, create a budget, dress for an interview, and they practiced interviewing as well. (The school brought volunteers who worked in HR in to work with the kids on interview skills.) There were some other life skills they learned, I'm not sure exactly what off the top of my head, but I thought it was the greatest idea to try to make sure those kids had a clue before sending them out into the world.

Anne

 

[Fitswimmer]

While there might be "policy," there isn't law that entitles anyone to welfare payments with no strings attached. The policies need to change so that people are given a hand up, not a hand out, and are made to take responsibility for themselves. Sometimes tough love is the best love.

Anne

And that's all well and good for us to say here on the DIS-but a politician that tries it is DEAD.
I remember here in NJ when Christie Whitman took away financial increases for additional children. Good Lord, you would have thought the woman was taking babies out and slaughtering them in the streets! She was also followed by Democratic administrations that promised assistance would be increased.

I said it before-people on public assistance VOTE and most of them aren't voting to get their benefits cut or to add requirements to them.

 

[DisneyMommyMichelle]

If I had my way? Birth control for every person who collects welfare (is there a male shot out yet?). Mandatory sterilization for child abusers and these who sexually abuse children.

No free ride. You receive welfare? You get your butt outta bed every morning, drop your child off at daycare (provided by the state) and go do a service job (garbage pick up?).

So much more. I am sure I would be flamed

No flames here, i totally agree!

 

[DisneyMommyMichelle]

At my sons high school all seniors were required to take a class called "Life Skills."

They learned how to fill out a tax return (a 1040EZ), fill out a job application, balance a check book, create a budget, dress for an interview, and they practiced interviewing as well. (The school brought volunteers who worked in HR in to work with the kids on interview skills.) There were some other life skills they learned, I'm not sure exactly what off the top of my head, but I thought it was the greatest idea to try to make sure those kids had a clue before sending them out into the world.

Anne

I think this is a fabulous idea! My mother works for Mcdonald's Corp in Oak Brook and teaches one of these classes. She is not in the HR field, but does her share of hiring, firing etc. in her line of work.

 

[minnieandme]

Why is the US Gov't so lenient on people then? I haven't heard of any other country giving hand outs to their residents. Welfare was only suppose to be a temporary solution for families during the Depression era.