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.
I suggest that any single mother who applies for state aid must identify the father of that child. The state then should make the father responsible for the support of that child. If the father is unwilling to pay then he should be jailed. If the mother fails to identify the father she would not get any support. Child welfare would follow up the case and remove the child if the mother could not support the child properly.
Everyone makes mistakes. No one is perfect. However, I read of one woman who had 16 children in seventeen years while on welfare. Of the 16 children three were serving time for various crimes. Here was a case of trash creating more trash. This has to stop. Perhaps a two or three child limit should be the rule for state aid.
Any single mother requiring state aid should be given every option for birth control including sterilization. If these same mothers were to get pregnant after this then severe penalties need to be implemented.
The only thing left to do is make fornication against the law and punishable. I know that sounds silly but what's left to do?
Single mothers that can't pay the bills must have welfare cut after the first birth, any more kids then no extra cash - and if they can't pay then the kids must be put into an orphanage
I think that is the way to go, right?
Works for me.
The problem is that we (the tax payers) end up supporting the same kids, just in a different setting.
I prefer to give "single mothers" the incentive of receiving a $500 lump sum payment if they have some long-term (6 months+) birth control method implemented. Or even $5,000 if they agree to get a tubal ligation. That would be awesome. I would be happy to pay for a few PERSONALLY. LOL
I suggest that any single mother who applies for state aid must identify the father of that child. The state then should make the father responsible for the support of that child. If the father is unwilling to pay then he should be jailed. If the mother fails to identify the father she would not get any support. Child welfare would follow up the case and remove the child if the mother could not support the child properly.
If the father is unwilling to pay, then his wages are automatically garnished. If he's unable to pay, then jailing him won't change that situation and is unjust.
Quote:
Everyone makes mistakes. No one is perfect. However, I read of one woman who had 16 children in seventeen years while on welfare. Of the 16 children three were serving time for various crimes. Here was a case of trash creating more trash. This has to stop. Perhaps a two or three child limit should be the rule for state aid.
You cannot make a limit of that sort because it isn't the child's fault that it was born to an irresponsible mother. Depriving her of money for the child only serves to deprive the child of food and clothes. A better solution might be to remove the child and place it in foster care. In that way the child still gets support, but the mother does not profit from having more and more children.
Quote:
Any single mother requiring state aid should be given every option for birth control including sterilization. If these same mothers were to get pregnant after this then severe penalties need to be implemented.
Then you run afoul of the "my body, my choice" crowd.
Quote:
The only thing left to do is make fornication against the law and punishable. I know that sounds silly but what's left to do?
Consider having an additional child after a parent already has one child which they are unable to support as being child abuse. Remove the children from the home and jail the parent.
If the father is unwilling to pay, then his wages are automatically garnished. If he's unable to pay, then jailing him won't change that situation and is unjust.
Incarceration is expensive as well. At the taxpayers expense, I might add.
Child Support Services workers actually have quite a bit of power when it comes to this They can have wages garnished, they can revoke things like hunting and fishing licenses as well as professional licensure such as electrical or plumbing licenses, legally compel paternity testing, etc.
But if a person outright refuses to work or have a legitimate, trackable income, or just disappears, it obviously makes collecting child support much more difficult.
It's unfortunate that so many people are willing and able to just walk away from their responsibilities.
The problem is that we (the tax payers) end up supporting the same kids, just in a different setting.
I prefer to give "single mothers" the incentive of receiving a $500 lump sum payment if they have some long-term (6 months+) birth control method implemented. Or even $5,000 if they agree to get a tubal ligation. That would be awesome. I would be happy to pay for a few PERSONALLY. LOL
20yrsinBranson
Or just make tubal ligation/vasectomy a requirement to receive welfare.
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.
