U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Mexico
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Unread 06-15-2008, 12:25 PM
 
Location: In a little valley under the Rim
2,147 posts, read 3,436,488 times
Reputation: 1728
Welfare is much more complicated then that, although I think we all wish it wasn't. My sister was on welfare in MN when they started changing the guidelines. She had a young, unexpected pregnancy, the father no where in sight. She went to community college, but had to be on welfare while she did it. She thought about finishing with a bachelors, but because of the changes, she couldn't do it and stay on welfare, but she couldn't work, go to school and be a single mom all at once either. She is doing alright (she picked a degree that would provide her with a steady job), but she is constantly on the verge of not having enough. Our parents take my niece school shopping and more often then not they buy her Christmas presents because of my sister's lack of funds. Will there ever be a way to weed out the lazies from those truly down on their luck? Of course, part of the MN problem was that welfare was being given to your average college student, which it should not be. Wish the social workers could use their common sense in awarding it, but everything is formulas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Unread 06-15-2008, 02:11 PM
 
Location: Trans-Pecos Texas
7,850 posts, read 10,569,872 times
Reputation: 3649
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyme4878 View Post
Welfare is much more complicated then that, although I think we all wish it wasn't. My sister was on welfare in MN when they started changing the guidelines. She had a young, unexpected pregnancy, the father no where in sight. She went to community college, but had to be on welfare while she did it. She thought about finishing with a bachelors, but because of the changes, she couldn't do it and stay on welfare, but she couldn't work, go to school and be a single mom all at once either. She is doing alright (she picked a degree that would provide her with a steady job), but she is constantly on the verge of not having enough. Our parents take my niece school shopping and more often then not they buy her Christmas presents because of my sister's lack of funds. Will there ever be a way to weed out the lazies from those truly down on their luck? Of course, part of the MN problem was that welfare was being given to your average college student, which it should not be. Wish the social workers could use their common sense in awarding it, but everything is formulas.
The question is.....why should the US taxpayer be stuck with the bills for out-of-wedlock births at all...and all of the associated costs?

The real problem is that welfare enables mothers to keep their out-of-wedlock children. If the family or the mother herself cannot support the child, then it is my opinion that it should be given up for adoption.

There are married childless couples wanting to adopt, and infants are scarce because of welfare and abortion.

As long as there is a way for them to keep their kids at taxpayer expense, this will just keep on happening. My opinion may appear to be heartless, but this problem is just out of control in both NM and TX.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 06-15-2008, 03:01 PM
 
Location: Abu Al-Qurq
2,783 posts, read 3,777,228 times
Reputation: 1569
Perhaps a bit more realistic approach than sterilization is a flat welfare stipend, regardless of the number of children. #1 gets you on the books (does already), #2-n forces you to split your check ever thinner.

Welfare moms aren't stupid; they just exploit the system. Change the system, you'll change the lifestyle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 06-15-2008, 04:09 PM
 
45,698 posts, read 29,877,435 times
Reputation: 20053
I'll modify my opinion just a little -- maybe a limited number of months on welfare on regular birth control and then permanent sterilization. That way welfare could be a safety net for the woman who made a bad decision to have a baby with a man who would not support his child but would not become a lifestyle choice for those who want to have babies that others have to pay for.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 06-15-2008, 04:42 PM
 
Location: In a little valley under the Rim
2,147 posts, read 3,436,488 times
Reputation: 1728
So only the rich should have kids now?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 06-15-2008, 04:44 PM
 
45,698 posts, read 29,877,435 times
Reputation: 20053
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyme4878 View Post
So only the rich should have kids now?
Not if they think someone else has to pay for them to have kids.

If you breed 'em you feed 'em. Rich or poor or middle class. Your kids are your responsiblity. My kids are mine.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 06-15-2008, 10:58 PM
 
Location: New Mexico to Texas
4,588 posts, read 8,778,330 times
Reputation: 1924
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
Not if they think someone else has to pay for them to have kids.

If you breed 'em you feed 'em. Rich or poor or middle class. Your kids are your responsiblity. My kids are mine.

Very true,I agree.

I think there should be a way to keep track or keep records of what is purchased for some people on government assistance, at least if its over a certain amount.If they are gonna recieve free money then they should have to report what they spend and I say this because of someone I know that I mentioned in another post who claims three kids but takes care of two, he has a nice SUV on $2000 dollar rims,a $700 cell phone,his wife has a couple $200 dollar purses,42" flat screen tv, and is taking a vacation to L.A. this year.He wants to appear like he has money and he always brinds up how much he is gonna be making, he hardly pays any taxes,he gets over $400 for groceries and gets half his rent paid for,plus the fat checks come tax rebate time with their extra kid they claim.

Im sure there are many other people like this out there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 06-16-2008, 09:58 AM
 
1,403 posts, read 2,331,687 times
Reputation: 1022
Quote:
Originally Posted by desert sun View Post
Very true,I agree.

I think there should be a way to keep track or keep records of what is purchased for some people on government assistance, at least if its over a certain amount.If they are gonna recieve free money then they should have to report what they spend and I say this because of someone I know that I mentioned in another post who claims three kids but takes care of two, he has a nice SUV on $2000 dollar rims,a $700 cell phone,his wife has a couple $200 dollar purses,42" flat screen tv, and is taking a vacation to L.A. this year.He wants to appear like he has money and he always brinds up how much he is gonna be making, he hardly pays any taxes,he gets over $400 for groceries and gets half his rent paid for,plus the fat checks come tax rebate time with their extra kid they claim.

Im sure there are many other people like this out there.
So...why don't you file a report..turn this person in? Have you done so, and if so, what happened? I think anyone seeing theft or fraud taking place has a responsibility to take action.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 06-16-2008, 10:15 AM
 
Location: Norwood, MN
1,828 posts, read 2,155,719 times
Reputation: 839
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzlover View Post
There is a very simple solution to this problem: Require anyone that applies for welfare or aid for dependent children to undergo non-reversible sterilization as a condition of receiving assistance. Wannbe welfare mothers might have one child, but that would be the last one. Now, I'm sure someone will point out that sterilization deprives the person of some "basic" freedom. Well, no one is holding a gun to their head and requiring them to do it--it would be the choice of the individual to undergo sterilization as a condition of receiving taxpayer assistance. To those who would say this would lead to only those being affluent enough to afford raising children actually having them, I say, What a concept!" Imagine having people who are bearing children actually being financially responsible for providing for their care and upbringing. And, yes, I would make the requirement "equal opportunity" for both the irresponsible father and the irresponsible mother. I'd bet out of wedlock births, single parenthood, and child neglect would all plummet--not to mention shrink the welfare rolls.
I agree 100% with jazzlover.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 06-16-2008, 10:50 AM
 
1,403 posts, read 2,331,687 times
Reputation: 1022
Quote:
Originally Posted by brightdoglover View Post
Well, as limited as drink/drugs/sex are for teenage activity, birth control/safe sex would make a huge difference in future childrens' well-being.
I guess I was a weird teenager in south Jersey. I got well into sex, drugs and rock n' roll, but still loved to read and bowl with friends, and not drink (didn't like it). Then again, I had less than no desire to become pregnant, and saw it as the end of the world.
I have certainly seen the "wanna be pregnant" mindset of very young teens in inner-city schools, when working with Planned Parenthood. It's what they grow up with- no husbands, no fathers, sisters and aunts and neighbors with cute kids' hair done, etc. State benefits to give them the illusion of being "independent" and therefore adult.
I'd be very interested in hearing more from you (sounds like you have solid firsthand experiences) about the mindset driving this sad trend of out of wedlock teen births, and what you think solutions might be.
It's a huge problem, and the worst part is that the price to be paid from decisions made (or NOT made) by young people are inflicted on little kids who have no choice in the matter.
While there are some positive stories of young single mothers who manage to get an education and succeed in life, I'm certain the vast, vast majority are doomed to poverty and all the bad things that entails. It's not just a NM problem either...it's everywhere. Maybe just a bit worse in the Land of Enchantment.
I don't think welfare is what's driving this, though a case could be made that it enables this trend to some degree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $74,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Mexico
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:14 PM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top