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.
The majority are not thinking "lets have kids to make money!" LOL. I know, you keep hearing that, but I assure you that very few people actually think that way.
Really what you're suggesting is that even deeper poverty would be good for children.
People have children because when theres nothing else to do they have sex, and their basic nature makes then want to have children. This is a basic function of our instincts.
Yes, but we need a non-arbitrary way of capping the amount, otherwise there is no (fundamental) limit even if the actual benefits at any given time are finite in amount. Congress could increase it.
The cost of the extra kids seems the natural place to start, and if families are "profiting" from more kids, then benefits are more than that.
If you have a better idea than the cost of the additional children, please justify it and we'll go from there.
I see Ronald Reagan's myth of the Chicago "welfare queen" is still alive and strong today.
It's not a myth at all. I have a psychotherapist in my immediate family who sees it all - including families with 5 kids where the mother decides to have a sixth in order to get a bigger check, even when not working at all. The number of people who abuse the system is much larger than it was in the Reagan era.
I'd rather start with the military. We spend more on war than the next nine nations combined. If I have to pay taxes, I'd much rather have it go to people who need it, than to killing people.
Welfare abuse is infinitesimally small. The largest welfare recipients by far are the massive corporations who receive huge tax breaks, get subsidies, and hide money overseas.
In any event, why take it out on an innocent child who had nothing to do with the parents' decision? I remember some wise man who said "what you do to the least of these, you do to me."
I agree. And while I would hate to encourage the welfare mentality, I am loath to starve children for their parents inadequacies.
How much does this even amount to?
What about the billions and billions given to large agricultural interests via lobbying efforts? The vast majority of that money doesn't go to dirt poor family farmers, it goes to companies like ADM. Additionally we hand out money to subsidize ethanol, encouraging the use of grains for inefficient fuel production, which has the side effect of driving up food costs!
There are a lot of places we could cut waste in government programs. Why would anyone choose hungry people or children as a starting point? The OP needs to set his sights higher.
Last edited by shaker281; 03-01-2015 at 07:03 AM..
It's not a myth at all. I have a psychotherapist in my immediate family who sees it all - including families with 5 kids where the mother decides to have a sixth in order to get a bigger check, even when not working at all. The number of people who abuse the system is much larger than it was in the Reagan era.
Prove that with facts, not family member anecdotes. Not saying they are not out there, but the claim "The number of people who abuse the system is much larger than it was in the Reagan era", needs to be proven. We all know that the great recession expanded welfare in this country, but that is not enough to prove the percentage of fraud is proportionately larger. Keep that in mind while proving your assertion.
Also, I have to question what psychotherapist has welfare moms as clients. Sounds a bit fishy.
Child welfare payments shouldn't be in money. They should be in child-rearing supplies like food, bottles, diapers etc.
Child related expenses also include paying for housing, utilities, transportation, etc. I recently read an article about how giving people freedom to make their own choices as to what to buy with food stamps etc is actually less of a hassle and provides less waste for the government than giving them a box of food.
So, what are we really getting at - trying to reduce government spending, or trying to shame the poor? Because I don't think that poverty is going to go away through shaming one generation of parents. There is a small subset of people who stay on welfare as a generational thing, but they're not the majority. And honestly if that's their hustle, they're going to figure out how to exploit whatever system people have in place. People are smart, and what mental power they're not putting into work, they're going to put into figuring out loopholes. It's the rest of the people - the majority - that needs help the most, and they're not the ones that need the motivation.
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.
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.
