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.
so the rest of us don't have to pay taxes to fund your kids. Until you have banked 300k, you aint ready to raise your FIRST kid. 200k more for each additional kid. No reason for a woman to have a kid before she's 30, or a man before he's 35. If the 2 of you aint got 300k in 15 years combined, then you CAN'T raise kids properly, in the US, most likely. So forget it. quit putting the load on other people! each kid takes 1`/4 million to raise properly, mother should be there for them until they are 6-7 years old, in PRIVATE school. So you lose her income for those years and need baby sitters, so mom can take sanity breaks. Quit putting the load of your retirement on ss and tax payers, or on your kids. Save-invest properly, or don't have kids.
Wait you kidding right? I am curious to see what everyone else posted. But this is the stupidest comment I have read today. Basically, by your logic, if this was followed to a tee, then this country would die off in a generation.
You've heard of ACLU & Human Rights haven't you?? This would be an envasion of their privacy!!
Actually, I fail to see how this is an invasion of privacy, since illegal drug use can affect work performance, and in some cases is actually required by the federal government, or state government, [such as getting a CDL license in some states].
If someone is going to hire you, why shouldn't they be allowed to test for illegal drug use?
If Grandma is 104 she has collected several times as much as she and her husband paid in.
She is one of the few. I figure about $150,000 over the 39 years since grandpa was eligable for retirement give or take. He worked way past 65 though. I have no idea how much SS he paid in. Im sure a lot more than the younger people that have been drawing disability for years because their back hurts or they are addicted to drugs and alcohol.
Actually, I fail to see how this is an invasion of privacy, since illegal drug use can affect work performance, and in some cases is actually required by the federal government, or state government, [such as getting a CDL license in some states].
If someone is going to hire you, why shouldn't they be allowed to test for illegal drug use?
see the rolled eyes, sarcasm.
If one is on welfare, drug testing is fair game. I'm all for it. When this was proposed, ACLU said, it was invasion of ones privacy. Something like that............
so the rest of us don't have to pay taxes to fund your kids. Until you have banked 300k, you aint ready to raise your FIRST kid. 200k more for each additional kid. No reason for a woman to have a kid before she's 30, or a man before he's 35. If the 2 of you aint got 300k in 15 years combined, then you CAN'T raise kids properly, in the US, most likely. So forget it. quit putting the load on other people! each kid takes 1`/4 million to raise properly, mother should be there for them until they are 6-7 years old, in PRIVATE school. So you lose her income for those years and need baby sitters, so mom can take sanity breaks. Quit putting the load of your retirement on ss and tax payers, or on your kids. Save-invest properly, or don't have kids.
I'm thinking maybe you should't be telling people not to have children until you learn to talk properly. "ain't got" is not the proper way and you sound very undeducated.
Most people who actualy work for a living and earn their money have to submit to drug testing.....why shouldn't welfare recipients be required to do the same?
Just an observation, many jobs these days require a drug test, and failure means no job. Some companies even test for nicotine, [smoking], and will not hire you if you fail. Is that any different than drug testing for welfare?
It's up to a company if they want to hire a smoker, but I don't see an issue with denying welfare to smokers...if they have that kind of money to spend on $8/pack smokes, I don't really think we should be subsidizing them.
It's up to a company if they want to hire a smoker, but I don't see an issue with denying welfare to smokers...if they have that kind of money to spend on $8/pack smokes, I don't really think we should be subsidizing them.
If you want to go there with smoking......then they should also lose their benefits if they have money to pay for satellite or cable TV.
"stop having kids you can't afford to raise properly. "
That means emotionally as well as financially. I see a lot of young people whose parents are doing well economically but are lousy parents and their kids are in trouble the same as the underprivileged and middle class. Being a good parent may be the hardest thing you ever do but it will also be the most rewarding thing you ever do.
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.