Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-21-2010, 12:04 PM
 
6,757 posts, read 8,284,458 times
Reputation: 10152

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD View Post
You didn't know that people on welfare get more money for each kid they have? If they weren't getting the money, they would think twice before getting pregnant. So should we just keep paying for every low life that keeps their legs open and pops out kid after kid just so these children can become a statistic?
For your reading pleasure and -

Welfare

Quote:
[SIZE=2]To address long-term welfare dependency, TANF placed a five year lifetime limit on assistance, but allowed states to exempt up to 20 percent of such cases for hardship reasons. States are allowed to reduce this lifetime limit below 5 years, and almost half of the states have done so.

[/SIZE]

Last edited by CaseyB; 07-21-2010 at 03:05 PM.. Reason: rude
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-21-2010, 12:06 PM
 
16,545 posts, read 13,452,677 times
Reputation: 4243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emeraldmaiden View Post
For your reading pleasure -

Welfare


[/SIZE][/font]
You may be the one that needs clarification. I didn't mention ANYTHING about how long they receive welfare. I mentioned that they get MORE for more children.

Last edited by CaseyB; 07-21-2010 at 03:06 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2010, 12:11 PM
 
Location: Blankity-blank!
11,446 posts, read 16,185,973 times
Reputation: 6963
Quote:
Originally Posted by majoun View Post
I thought that comment was stating that those who seek to ban sex ed programs are nanny staters.
Right! They need the nanny state law on their side to prevent sex ed programs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2010, 12:12 PM
 
18,381 posts, read 19,020,549 times
Reputation: 15700
sounds like the parents in the OP's news article nee to go to sex education classes. one so they are not outraged at normal sexual things and can talk to their kids about it. these are the kind of parents who want their children kept in the dark completely or they will allow a "night light" but not truly turn on the light. then this kind of parent can't figure out why we have such a high rate of teen pregnancy and or abortion, and concern about paying more welfare. wake up parents stop being so embarrassed. kids should know about all types of sexual activities. knowing about something does not mean they will engage in it. education is not a bad thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2010, 12:17 PM
 
6,757 posts, read 8,284,458 times
Reputation: 10152
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD View Post
I didn't mention ANYTHING about how long they receive welfare. I mentioned that they get MORE for more children.
Drat, wrong quote.

From the same link:

Quote:
[SIZE=2]Recipients are no longer guaranteed welfare benefits based on eligibility.


So, not necessarily. You might want to read the page.
[/SIZE]

Last edited by CaseyB; 07-21-2010 at 03:07 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2010, 12:19 PM
 
2,104 posts, read 1,442,874 times
Reputation: 636
Quote:
Originally Posted by majoun View Post
I thought that comment was stating that those who seek to ban sex ed programs are nanny staters.
I dunno. Considering the source, I don't think that is what was meant by that. I think he meant allowing sex-ed was "nannying".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2010, 12:21 PM
 
16,545 posts, read 13,452,677 times
Reputation: 4243
Quote:
Originally Posted by ♠atizar♠ View Post
I dunno. Considering the source, I don't think that is what was meant by that. I think he meant allowing sex-ed was "nannying".
I was talking about the nanny state taking over for the parents, absolving the parents from any "parenting" responsibilities.

Last edited by CaseyB; 07-21-2010 at 03:07 PM.. Reason: rude
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2010, 12:25 PM
 
1,476 posts, read 2,024,949 times
Reputation: 704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tymberwulf View Post
You are correct, girls do need to be taught how to self examine themselves, BY THEIR MOTHERS!!!

Parents need to freaking put down the remote control and start parenting already!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2010, 12:26 PM
 
2,104 posts, read 1,442,874 times
Reputation: 636
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD View Post
You didn't know that people on welfare get more money for each kid they have? If they weren't getting the money, they would think twice before getting pregnant. So should we just keep paying for every low life that keeps their legs open and pops out kid after kid just so these children can become a statistic?
Clinton and the Repubs closed a lot of the loopholes.

There is no endless free lunch anymore for "welfare queens".


Here's an anecdote from my life:

When I was in college, a girl (a8 years old) who worked for me at a bakery I was running got pregnant. The father took off to another state as soon as he heard about it. She was extremely religious and conservative and so was her family. She feared her parents and what her BIBLE COLLEGE (a college that even forbade dancing among other things NORMAL people do) would do to her so much that she used Planned Parenthood and had an abortion.

What does this tell us? I know what it tells me...

Last edited by CaseyB; 07-21-2010 at 03:08 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2010, 12:29 PM
 
18,381 posts, read 19,020,549 times
Reputation: 15700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tymberwulf View Post
You are correct, girls do need to be taught how to self examine themselves, BY THEIR MOTHERS!!!

Parents need to freaking put down the remote control and start parenting already!
many parents are too embarrassed to teach their children so they don't say a word. should these kids stay uneducated?

many parents if they have their own hang ups can and do pass them on to their children. a child should be able to have all the facts and make up their own mind how they view sex for themselves.

hats off to all the parents who do teach their child everything there is in the world of sex and answer any questions they may have. it is not however the norm.
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 $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:16 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top