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.
With too many laws already it's tough to justify adding new ones. Therefore, the new ones should have extraordinary benefits.
I can think of 2:
1. Eliminate or at least extend to 20-30 years the statue of limitations on rape, especially of a child.
Victims have a lifetime of issues that lead to self medication, abuse and even other crimes. I never
understood how someone who abuses a child can walk without repercussions after a few years.
2. Limit welfare benefits to include only 1 child. To continue to receive benefits the parent must have
birth control. They can have all the kids they want but the money stops at one. Having more kids
when you are not supporting the first one is ridiculous. Naming both parents is another criteria.
With too many laws already it's tough to justify adding new ones. Therefore, the new ones should have extraordinary benefits.
I can think of 2:
1. Eliminate or at least extend to 20-30 years the statue of limitations on rape, especially of a child.
Victims have a lifetime of issues that lead to self medication, abuse and even other crimes. I never
understood how someone who abuses a child can walk without repercussions after a few years.
2. Limit welfare benefits to include only 1 child. To continue to receive benefits the parent must have
birth control. They can have all the kids they want but the money stops at one. Having more kids
when you are not supporting the first one is ridiculous. Naming both parents is another criteria.
This makes absolutely zero sense, as welfare exists for the sake of children.
To deny children needed assistance because one resents the failings of their parents is not only illogical, it is ethically wrong. We - collectively, as a society - are better than that, even if some individuals are not.
With too many laws already it's tough to justify adding new ones. Therefore, the new ones should have extraordinary benefits.
I can think of 2:
1. Eliminate or at least extend to 20-30 years the statue of limitations on rape, especially of a child.
Victims have a lifetime of issues that lead to self medication, abuse and even other crimes. I never
understood how someone who abuses a child can walk without repercussions after a few years.
2. Limit welfare benefits to include only 1 child. To continue to receive benefits the parent must have
birth control. They can have all the kids they want but the money stops at one. Having more kids
when you are not supporting the first one is ridiculous. Naming both parents is another criteria.
1) Many state do not have statutes of limitations for rape. Currently, the federal government does not have statute of limitations for sexual abuse of a child, according to the Adam Walsh Act. Some states may still have one, but few if any do, and even so, the accused can still be charged at the federal level.
Bare in mind also what the point of a statute of limitation is. It's meant to protect the accused. I I say I was raped 15 years ago, the only way to determine someone's innocence or guilt is word of mouth. It will be damn near impossible to prove that such a thing happened even a year ago. And for better or worse, it is for those who commit crimes, never get caught, and never commit a crime again. It's to allow people to not have to pay for a mistake that happened long ago. Like I said, for better or worse, this is partially it's function. Yes, that sounds pretty bad from the victim's point of view, but the justice system was never intended to only protect the rights of the victim, something many seem to forget. Love it or hate it, I'd still prefer a system that considers this two people making a case against the other rather than the accused is most likely guilty and subhuman.
2) This defeats the purpose of welfare entirely. Birth control isn't exactly cheap, nor 100% effective. What exactly are you considering birth control, by the way? The pill? Condoms? Pulling out? These all have ways to fail, and cost money (well, the last one is free). When you live pay check to pay check, you have to make priorities. Food and housing will always come first. As will many other things. Birth control may not be as accessible as you may think.
Beyond this, you are punishing the child for the parents. Rather or not the parents were responsible for having another kid is partially irrelevant here. The kid suffers due to a mistake someone else makes under your system. Under the current, they at least have a better chance.
2. Limit welfare benefits to include only 1 child. To continue to receive benefits the parent must have
birth control. They can have all the kids they want but the money stops at one. Having more kids
when you are not supporting the first one is ridiculous. Naming both parents is another criteria.
I'm kind of iffy on this one......on one hand, I know someone who (supposedly) got pregnant again so that she and her then-husband could continue receiving benefits. (she had two kids from previous relationships, and two with the husband)
On the other hand, I had a co-worker who needed to get on Medicaid after her husband died, our state requires you to re-apply every six months, and every time....she had to bring in a death certificate and prove that "Ralph" was dead.
2. Limit welfare benefits to include only 1 child. To continue to receive benefits the parent must have
birth control. They can have all the kids they want but the money stops at one. Having more kids
when you are not supporting the first one is ridiculous. Naming both parents is another criteria.
No. Bad idea. Here's one example. Falling oil prices have caused many workers in the various oil patches to lose their jobs. Some of them are having to seek assistance such as turning to SNAP (aka "Food Stamps") for assistance. A segment (I'm not sure how large) consist of families with more than one child. Would you have them starve because their benefits only took into account one child when they had two or more?
My wife's father, a truck driver was killed when she was six. Social Security came through for her and her family, at least part of the way. Should her mother have been limited to benefits for one child when there were three?
Are you under the impression that many that welfare recipients are born into the system and then never leave? According to the Census Bureau, the majority leave Medicaid and SNAP within three years and another 43 percent left before the end of the fourth year.
Of the remainder, many are children, seniors, or disabled.
This makes absolutely zero sense, as welfare exists for the sake of children.
To deny children needed assistance because one resents the failings of their parents is not only illogical, it is ethically wrong. We - collectively, as a society - are better than that, even if some individuals are not.
Ummmm...NO!!!
If people can't afford children (in this case more than one)
they should not keep bringing more into the world.
Responsible people figured this out long ago.
The OP was directing this at setting limits for people who abuse the welfare system by having children in order to increase benefits. No one is suggesting existing children should suffer because yes that would be completely wrong. People suffering with legitimate hardship would be far better off if all the leeches were purged from the system.
.
If people can't afford children (in this case more than one)
they should not keep bringing more into the world.
Responsible people figured this out long ago.
The OP was directing this at setting limits for people who abuse the welfare system by having children in order to increase benefits. No one is suggesting existing children should suffer because yes that would be completely wrong.
But it's not wrong to starve a newborn infant to death to punish her for her mother's poor decision? That's alright, then? That infant is somehow more deserving of starvation than a child who was smart enough to be born before his mother lost her job and went on welfare?
How many seconds did you spend thinking this through?
People in Kentucky are too busy working through the ones we already have. They're slowwitted and unambitious by nature, so it'll take 'em a while to finish ignoring the ones currently on the books. I'd say sometime around 2019, we could start writing some brand new laws for them to ignore.
I've always liked the republican form of government. That's the one in which governments are instituted among men to secure endowed rights and liberties, and govern only those who consent to be governed.
Which boils down to :
Job #1 : secure rights, and
Job #2 : govern those who consent.
Caveat : consent waives job #1.
Which brings about the next point - if the bulk of Americans withdrew consent, and government could no longer "rule" them, nor tax them in the exercise of their endowed rights, 97% of the revenue base would be gone.
I'd like to see that.
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.
