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'm torn on this topic. I fully support a safety net for those who have done the right things yet end up in unfortunate circumstances due to layoffs, injury or whatever reason. Yet I certainly know firsthand there are people gaming the system. Sadly, the mother of my stepson's daughter is one of them. She left my stepson and their daughter for a year and a half and took up with another guy and had another daughter with him. I know she doesn't work (not sure if he does), but their housing is paid for, the child's healthcare, EBT, etc., all based on the daughter. The boyfriend lives there on the down low of course because that would threaten the benefits. Now all of a sudden she is reinserting herself into my stepson's daughter's life to get additional benefits. Not only from the state, but from him. She now has the baby three days a week - he has her four - and he has to pay her child support on top of the benefits she gets from the state now for two kids.
The problem is how to design a system that doesn't incentivize people to have more children in order to qualify for benefits while still providing a safety net for those who need it but are not simply trying to take advantage. I don't believe it is right to let innocent children who did not ask to be born go hungry, without housing or healthcare, etc. There is no easy answer, or we'd be doing it. The best thing I have come up with - and it is far from perfect - is to condition receipt of child-based benefits on proof of birth control use. It would have to be something like an IUD, Depo shot, etc., not condoms or foam that you would simply have to trust someone to use every time. In order to get benefits the applicant would have to show proof that she is using one of these types of doctor-implanted or injected birth control. The birth control would be provided by the state without charge.
There are some obvious flaws, religious objections, allergies, etc. But my thought is that this would at least allow aid to continue to benefit the kids that have been born while hopefully cutting down on additional kids that require state assistance. Once the parents get back on their feet and want more kids they can stop using the birth control and the aid is cut off.
This system could of course also be gamed....sadly there is no perfect. But just because there is no perfect doesn't mean we should turn our backs on kids in need.
I'm torn on this topic. I fully support a safety net for those who have done the right things yet end up in unfortunate circumstances due to layoffs, injury or whatever reason. Yet I certainly know firsthand there are people gaming the system. Sadly, the mother of my stepson's daughter is one of them. She left my stepson and their daughter for a year and a half and took up with another guy and had another daughter with him. I know she doesn't work (not sure if he does), but their housing is paid for, the child's healthcare, EBT, etc., all based on the daughter. The boyfriend lives there on the down low of course because that would threaten the benefits. Now all of a sudden she is reinserting herself into my stepson's daughter's life to get additional benefits. Not only from the state, but from him. She now has the baby three days a week - he has her four - and he has to pay her child support on top of the benefits she gets from the state now for two kids.
Everything can be gamed. That's how life works.
The problem is how to design a system that doesn't incentivize people to have more children in order to qualify for benefits while still providing a safety net for those who need it but are not simply trying to take advantage. I don't believe it is right to let innocent children who did not ask to be born go hungry, without housing or healthcare, etc. There is no easy answer, or we'd be doing it. The best thing I have come up with - and it is far from perfect - is to condition receipt of child-based benefits on proof of birth control use. It would have to be something like an IUD, Depo shot, etc., not condoms or foam that you would simply have to trust someone to use every time. In order to get benefits the applicant would have to show proof that she is using one of these types of doctor-implanted or injected birth control. The birth control would be provided by the state without charge.
There are some obvious flaws, religious objections, allergies, etc. But my thought is that this would at least allow aid to continue to benefit the kids that have been born while hopefully cutting down on additional kids that require state assistance. Once the parents get back on their feet and want more kids they can stop using the birth control and the aid is cut off.
This system could of course also be gamed....sadly there is no perfect. But just because there is no perfect doesn't mean we should turn our backs on kids in need.
Why would he have to pay support for essentially 50/50 custody? Why didn't he get a support order when he had full custody?
You can't force someone to take birth control for benefits. That's unconstitutional.
A lot of women have the BF around and keep it on the dl bc you're dinged for having a BF. It's not perfect but at least the dad is around. What's the other option, report her and the dad leaves? It's not like the Hasidic people who get spiritually but not legally married, have 12 kids and drain the entire county resources.
We all have known someone who was sketchy regarding benefits but you can't base your opinions on the few you know. The majority are the ones who have their back turned when swiping the ebt card bc they know people are judging.
When Wall Street fat cats can make billions by crashing the economy and getting bailed out by taxpayers, I see no reason why people who work 40 hours a week shouldnt earn a living wage.
That's not what happened, and you know it. The Federal Reserve didn't create $2 Trillion in QE to buy Fannie/Freddie MBS for nothing.
Even Barney Frank admitted (naturally, AFTER he retired from Congress) the 2008 financial crisis was caused by HUD ordering Fannie/Freddie to buy $2.4 Trillion in mortgages made to low-income and/or high-risk, credit-compromised borrowers.
Anyone interested in all the facts can read them here, complete with corroboration at the included links:
When did schools become restaurants? Isn't it enough that we have to pay for the birth and ongoing medical care of the biological result of the parents' recreational f**king, house them, provide welfare funding, give them phones, etc.? Let the parents use some of those welfare funds to buy a loaf of bread and some bologna rather than spending it all on weed, manicures and 40s of malt liquor.
You breed 'em, you feed 'em. I wasn't involved in the decision and certainly not involved in the process to create these leeches. Why would I, as a taxpayer, be obligated to feed them? Use some of that money spent on lottery tickets to buy food.
Blew my coffee out of my nose at the bolded text, above. And even though your post is somewhat harsh, I can't say I disagree.
And before anyone goes off on their anti-defunding Planned Parenthood BS, understand that there are MANY TIMES MORE public free and sliding fee scale Family Planning Clinics than there are PP facilities. Provide more funding for those, instead:
I'm torn on this topic. I fully support a safety net for those who have done the right things yet end up in unfortunate circumstances due to layoffs, injury or whatever reason. Yet I certainly know firsthand there are people gaming the system. Sadly, the mother of my stepson's daughter is one of them. She left my stepson and their daughter for a year and a half and took up with another guy and had another daughter with him. I know she doesn't work (not sure if he does), but their housing is paid for, the child's healthcare, EBT, etc., all based on the daughter. The boyfriend lives there on the down low of course because that would threaten the benefits. Now all of a sudden she is reinserting herself into my stepson's daughter's life to get additional benefits. Not only from the state, but from him. She now has the baby three days a week - he has her four - and he has to pay her child support on top of the benefits she gets from the state now for two kids.
The problem is how to design a system that doesn't incentivize people to have more children in order to qualify for benefits while still providing a safety net for those who need it but are not simply trying to take advantage.
Mandatory permanent sterilization for those collecting public assistance for more than one year. No additional assistance for any children born (or conceived) during that time. No one is forced to accept the terms, but if you fail to comply you are cut off. Period. No exceptions. Poverty will plummet within a generation. Crime will drop drastically within that same time, particularly amongst younger people.
Seems like a reasonable and effective solution. And the affected can continue with their recreational activities (cited in another post above) - there just won't be any product for the rest of us to pay for.
Taxpayers feeding, clothing, and housing kids is a bad thing. Lets not forget paying for all their medical expenses.
This isn't about the children, its about lowlife parents.
So you have kids who are hungry in school and flunk out, have behavior problems, don't perform to their full potential, etc., the cycle repeats and those issues are FAR more expensive than providing them a cheap or free lunch every day. It IS about the children, and how in the future, those children will be parents. There are plenty of parents who work and still qualify. For example, here are the scales for California:
No correlation between global fertility rates and welfare benefits.
Countries with zero welfare and healthcare have fertility rates in multiples of those in Nordic countries with substantial welfare and healthcare benefits.
The more prosperous and educated s country, the lower the fertility rate and vice- versa.
The US fertility rate is amongst the lowest in the world.
Last I heard, it took a male and female having unprotected sex to produce a baby.
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.
Robin Hood was not a hero, he was a thief by any measure.
