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.
And I would count forced sterilization as making things worse - that's a severe violation of rights.
It's not at all.
The person who requires welfare essentially surrenders his or her sovereignty in exchange to be taken care of. You cannot be entitled to all your rights if you failed at supporting yourself.
For the unmarried woman, who has a child and needs welfare, there is basically no other way. It's unfair to the taxpayer to burden them with her irresponsibility. We can't just keep the money fixed if she has 20 more children, then those children suffer. It's much easier to force the situation, i.e sterilize her.
If the couple were married, I'd make a condition that they couldn't have any children while on welfare. If they did, I would have the mother be sterilized again but I would leave them alone if they already had kids and started on welfare.
This is the only way to balance compassion and well being of the person on welfare and compassion and well being for the rest of the taxpayer.
This thread shows huge gaps in logic and a very poor ability to see beyond a predetermined "solution." I thought the free thinkers would see more possibilties than this. I don't really expect out-of-the-box thinking, but please at least use the whole box.
Would a pro-lifer condone mandated abortion for the jobless?
like, if they can't afford them they shouldn't have them.
No money = no kid
So abortion is the option here according to these idealists.
Will you support this though or is it just the usual vile tripe?
My view is that we all have the right to procreate, regardless of income
Not a clue what you are trying to say, or who you are trying to denigrate.
MY thoughts. If you cannot afford to raise the child, you should think twice before performing the action that can result in a child. Animals cannot control themselves, we as humans are supposed to be better than animals.
If you DO have a child it's YOUR job to provide, not mine. I have my own concerns, they involve MY kids and grandchild.
Need help, go to your church or synagogue and ask for charity.
WTF is wrong with you? Again, TANF is a temporary program here is the official name Temporary assistance for needy families. There is a 5 year max. There is a work requirement. There are a very small percentage of households getting direct welfare money. It is an average of $3,500 from the federal government per family, per year. So on the back drop that this program is temporary and very small, why agree with a discussion of killing them all and calling people sluts?
Also, conservatives are against planned parenthood, which does family planning and provides free birth control. conservatives have zero credibility.
Normally when people speak of welfare, they are talking collectively about any gov't aid program, not just TANF/cash assistance.
I wouldn't have a problem with PP if they did not provide abortions, and I think most conservatives would agree.
It'd be nice to do something, but the problem is figuring out what to do that doesn't end up making things worse. And I would count forced sterilization as making things worse - that's a severe violation of rights.
The only thing I've been able to come up with is remove a child from the mother if that child is born to the mother while she is already on welfare.
I've seen lots of people say that people should only get support for the first child. But that leaves children starving.
The problem I have with my own idea is not knowing whether institutional or foster care would be worse for the child than the environment they are already in. I think you could easily make it legal by declaring the mother guilty of child neglect. I believe having a new child while you are already receiving welfare to support another child is clear evidence of child abuse. So I have no sympathy for the mother, but I don't know if it's healthy for the child. Foster/institutional care is not good for kids, but neither is it good for a child to be living with a mother who is so irresponsible and poor.
As it stands right now, people are rewarded for bad behavior under the principle that the child can't be held responsible for the parent's actions. It's a good principle, but the practical result is taking resources from responsible productive citizens and giving them to reward unproductive irresponsible people. And not only that, the reward goes up in direct proportion to exactly how poor their behavior is. It's the exact opposite of what we should be promoting.
Even if women are not purposely having children to increase or extend their government benefits, I think the knowledge that having another child would result in going through pregnancy and then having the child removed while getting no increase in benefits would cause women to take more care in their actions and make more of an effort not to get pregnant. So I think that in the long run it would reduce the number of children in poverty, lower the burden on the economy, and start removing the entitlement mindset.
Another great post from kid. It's against the law not to provide for your children, so if they are starving they will be taken. She will receive no benefit, therefore, this is the solution. Cut em off after the first kid. Plus the livein boyfriends will have to fend for themselves.
The person who requires welfare essentially surrenders his or her sovereignty in exchange to be taken care of. You cannot be entitled to all your rights if you failed at supporting yourself.
For the unmarried woman, who has a child and needs welfare, there is basically no other way. It's unfair to the taxpayer to burden them with her irresponsibility. We can't just keep the money fixed if she has 20 more children, then those children suffer. It's much easier to force the situation, i.e sterilize her.
If the couple were married, I'd make a condition that they couldn't have any children while on welfare. If they did, I would have the mother be sterilized again but I would leave them alone if they already had kids and started on welfare.
This is the only way to balance compassion and well being of the person on welfare and compassion and well being for the rest of the taxpayer.
None of the info is mine. 13. 7 or 15% still a minority. again do the math
Minority or not, that is a HUGE number of people. Is that figure okay with you?
Quote:
72 billion divided by 47.7 million people works out to be $1500 per year per person. That works out to be $4.13 per day per person. This is an extreme stingy program. This idea that this is what upsets conservatives is pathetic.
Stingy? My SIL gets $800 or so a month to feed herself and three kids. I know there is a lot of elderly people on food stamps but the majority is families such as my SIL's. That's like $10k a year they are getting. My MIL briefly got about $200 a month when she applied for SSDI. That's $2400/year for one person. As the family size increases, it's actually easier to feed them b/c you're not wasting as much food when cooking or buying in packages (like say 8 hot dogs...you eat a few and the rest go bad, whereas a bigger family will eat that in a couple days). But it still averages out to be about $50 a week per person, from what I have seen (yes, that is anecdotal).
Quote:
I don't focus on anything. When conservatives write about welfare, I think of the welfare program which is TANF which is the new name of the welfare program.
The fact that lying conservatives want to call every program that helps poor people welfare is bs.
That's the general term for government assistance. If you don't like it or if it confuses you, that's your problem.
The person who requires welfare essentially surrenders his or her sovereignty in exchange to be taken care of. You cannot be entitled to all your rights if you failed at supporting yourself.
For the unmarried woman, who has a child and needs welfare, there is basically no other way. It's unfair to the taxpayer to burden them with her irresponsibility. We can't just keep the money fixed if she has 20 more children, then those children suffer. It's much easier to force the situation, i.e sterilize her.
If the couple were married, I'd make a condition that they couldn't have any children while on welfare. If they did, I would have the mother be sterilized again but I would leave them alone if they already had kids and started on welfare.
This is the only way to balance compassion and well being of the person on welfare and compassion and well being for the rest of the taxpayer.
Well that's why I say maybe we should just declare a woman having a child while she is on welfare and already has a child to be child abuse. Then we can simply remove the child from her house using existing laws. Without that child, she does not get an extension or increase of her benefits and therefore has no incentive to keep leeching on the system. If she gets her life in order, then she can get the child back. Same as we do with drug abusers. Being addicted to drugs while having a child makes the environment an unsafe one and protective services will remove the child until you clean up your act, and while the child is not in your custody you get no welfare check that child might otherwise have entitled you to.
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.
