Asking about welfare and women that have children (home, school)

[Govie]

As I understand it, the more children women have who are not capable of supporting these children, the taxpayer is obligated to fund, am I correct? Please help me. I've been having a discussion with a personal friend about this topic lately and I think one of us is missing something or we're not thoroughly schooled on the facts. Minnesota alegedly is a big proponent of taxpayer "obligations/abuses/waste."



Anyone?

[dravogadro]

You mean taxpayers are footing the bill for irresponsible fathers? Yes. But I do not think the word is 'obligated'; there is nothing automatic and of course an application process for everything. Many of the old myths about welfare changed in 1996 with the reform, right? That goals specifically included are:
- to reduce out-of-wedlock pregnancies
- to promote the formation of two-parent families.


You can apply for certain benefits that are for children. However, the law of diminishing returns sets in if you apply for more than 2 children. You might get an extra $70/month per kid (this number is several years old but I could not find anything more recent. It might even be lower now). Hardly a great way to earn some $$.

When you do look at the money numbers for government-support for children, a large chunk of it goes to supporting foster parents....something to keep in mind.


Speaking of taxpayer abuses, do you find it interesting that Minnesota is one of the few states that (Federally) gets back less money then it puts into the system (per dollar)? Actually, we are almost at the bottom of the barrel for getting back our return.

[trip_shakespeare]

Originally Posted by Govie

As I understand it, the more children women have who are not capable of supporting these children, the taxpayer is obligated to fund, am I correct? Please help me. I've been having a discussion with a personal friend about this topic lately and I think one of us is missing something or we're not thoroughly schooled on the facts. Minnesota alegedly is a big proponent of taxpayer "obligations/abuses/waste."



Anyone?

What?! I'm sorry, your question is difficult to read/decipher. Is English a second language?

My mom was on welfare. She raised three children while, at the same time, working. That said, she wasn't lazy. And, no, she didn't have any of us to get an additional $50 in benefits per month. Shocking, right?!

The idea that persons on welfare have kids to get more money isn't backed up by facts. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, present it.

I'm a kid who grew up on welfare. I had a good mom, a **** dad, but food in my fridge and a roof over my head, thank God! And I know I, at 40, have already paid it all back in the taxes I pay!

We need to stop ****ting on the poor~!

[Beenhere4ever]

Minnesota is far more concerned about poverty, but there are people who like to invent myths about endless largesse in Minnesota. I think one of the reasons we have a lot of punks in the street is because no one is home to teach them any manners or morals. Thanks to the "welfare queen" agitators. Oh, and thanks to the people (many here) who think contraception is immoral. Yet, they turn around to complain when the natural result of lack of contraception happens. I think anyone who doesn't want girls and women to have children they can't support should be lobbying to the max for contraception. The whole world, with its 7 billion and counting, needs as much contraception as it can get. But the righties insist that God wants every one of these births, even the mothers who haven't a prayer of being self-supporting.

Nice.

[Govie]

Originally Posted by trip_shakespeare

What?! I'm sorry, your question is difficult to read/decipher. Is English a second language?

My mom was on welfare. She raised three children while, at the same time, working. That said, she wasn't lazy. And, no, she didn't have any of us to get an additional $50 in benefits per month. Shocking, right?!

The idea that persons on welfare have kids to get more money isn't backed up by facts. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, present it.

I'm a kid who grew up on welfare. I had a good mom, a **** dad, but food in my fridge and a roof over my head, thank God! And I know I, at 40, have already paid it all back in the taxes I pay!

We need to stop ****ting on the poor~!

Nice condescending shot there.

I'll have you know I come from a two-income household and a home where there is one less sibling for me because they were "too expensive" for my working parents to afford. With two siblings who are both college educated (one on account of my parents who emptied a hefty price from their 401K) and myself also college educated your comments mean zilch to me. When my sisters tell me - sisters that have what would be considered VERY good jobs - it's too expensive to have more than two, maybe three, children and watching the freeloader crowd at my Rainbow on Arcade with a half dozen of them - the same women who pull their EBS card out in front of me with a cart full of soda, pizzas, and other goodies - yeah, your comments are laughable. But if you're a "child of welfare" I can understand how a simple, non-loaded question such as that posted may have hit a nerve.

Okay, these women aren't having these children to profit, let's assume, but it's a shame they are about as reckless as any people in the state/country when they have no problem having more children at our expense.

Originally Posted by Beenhere4ever

But the righties insist that God wants every one of these births, even the mothers who haven't a prayer of being self-supporting.

Nice.

I don't know "righties" like that. Most people I interact with on any sort of political discourse matters, be they conservative or liberal, republican or democrat, agree that population issues both domestic and abroad are a real problem.