Should welfare recipients be required not to have children while on welfare? Agree or disagree? Why

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about the child care tax credit? Or the mortgage interest write off that allows people to live in bigger houses to accommodate families? How about free public education? Or subsidized college loans? If you can't afford to send your own kid to college, why should the taxpayers help you?

OP, do you oppose public benefits for the middle and upper classes, or only those that benefit the poor? Serious question.

I support public benefits when they benefit the public, not when they enable them to continue making poor choices. Father loses job, has 4 kids. Yes, help him. poor student gets free education...absolutely, as long as he wants to learn. Welfare recipient having more kids to collect more benefits, no frickin way.
Help those who want to help themselves.

BOOM! Game on!

Ok, if you over mortgage yourself them no mortgage deduction. If you go bankrupt then no tax deductions or college aid.

Plenty of middle class people make poor life decisions but no one questions their benefits.

The difference is if you keep making the same mistake over and over again and expect someone to keep bailing you out.

[Anonymous]

Funny thing is the big supporters of this will be the "pro life" folks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No.
I want the government involved in my baby making decisions zero percent of the time.

Can you support your babies? If yes, then have as many as you want. If no, go ahead and have more if you want, but don't expect public tax dollars to help you raise them. We need those dollars to fix the potholes from all the snow we had this winter.

Why is it any of your business if I can support my babies or not? If everyone waited to have babies until they could afford them, no one would have babies.

It is a human life, OP. You don't get to decide what people can and can't do because to want that money to go to infrastructure.

And then what? Say I have a baby and then lose my job, should my baby be taken away from me and slaughtered?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about the child care tax credit? Or the mortgage interest write off that allows people to live in bigger houses to accommodate families? How about free public education? Or subsidized college loans? If you can't afford to send your own kid to college, why should the taxpayers help you?

OP, do you oppose public benefits for the middle and upper classes, or only those that benefit the poor? Serious question.

I support public benefits when they benefit the public, not when they enable them to continue making poor choices. Father loses job, has 4 kids. Yes, help him. poor student gets free education...absolutely, as long as he wants to learn. Welfare recipient having more kids to collect more benefits, no frickin way.
Help those who want to help themselves.

BOOM! Game on!

Ok, if you over mortgage yourself them no mortgage deduction. If you go bankrupt then no tax deductions or college aid.

Plenty of middle class people make poor life decisions but no one questions their benefits.

The difference is if you keep making the same mistake over and over again and expect someone to keep bailing you out.

That doesn't actually happen. I hate to introduce sanity to this discussion, but the way about half the states handle it is a family cap. If you have more children while on public assistance you don't get more money.

See, no need to impose forced birth control or kick kids out onto the street. You just don't have to give incremental funding for additional children.

It's called the "Family Cap". Pretty sure even California has one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about the child care tax credit? Or the mortgage interest write off that allows people to live in bigger houses to accommodate families? How about free public education? Or subsidized college loans? If you can't afford to send your own kid to college, why should the taxpayers help you?

OP, do you oppose public benefits for the middle and upper classes, or only those that benefit the poor? Serious question.

I support public benefits when they benefit the public, not when they enable them to continue making poor choices. Father loses job, has 4 kids. Yes, help him. poor student gets free education...absolutely, as long as he wants to learn. Welfare recipient having more kids to collect more benefits, no frickin way.
Help those who want to help themselves.

BOOM! Game on!

Ok, if you over mortgage yourself them no mortgage deduction. If you go bankrupt then no tax deductions or college aid.

Plenty of middle class people make poor life decisions but no one questions their benefits.

The difference is if you keep making the same mistake over and over again and expect someone to keep bailing you out.

Actually there is no limit on the times people can declare bankruptcy. No penalties. I know someone who worked for the CIA and foreclosed on homes, bankruptcy, etc. Just nuts. This guy also has 4 kids, 3 different wives. All of his children will qualify for subsidies, etc. One step above welfare, of course.

[Anonymous]

BTW is everyone enjoying the rock bottom refi rates that the government engineered so that your home value didn't totally collapse? No poor choices there...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Funny thing is the big supporters of this will be the "pro life" folks.

Wow, you are dumb.

Do you know what pro-life means? Why would a pro-lifer agree to less children just because of money?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny thing is the big supporters of this will be the "pro life" folks.

Wow, you are dumb.

Do you know what pro-life means? Why would a pro-lifer agree to less children just because of money?

B/c "pro life" is all about controlling women and slut shaming. Not about kids at all.

Check it out - being "pro life" and anti welfare go hand in hand. Too tired to find cite, though.

[Anonymous]

I've been on welfare, and it was the most depressing, most degrading thing I've ever gone through. I can't even imagine how much worse it would be to have someone dictating my reproductive rights.

What I think might be better, is for welfare recipients to be given the offer of free birth control - prescriptions for birth control pills they can get at the drugstore nearest their home that won't require a copay, an IUD, whatever form they'd like that works for their body. And women should be offered this when their husbands/boyfriends are NOT with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about the child care tax credit? Or the mortgage interest write off that allows people to live in bigger houses to accommodate families? How about free public education? Or subsidized college loans? If you can't afford to send your own kid to college, why should the taxpayers help you?

OP, do you oppose public benefits for the middle and upper classes, or only those that benefit the poor? Serious question.

I support public benefits when they benefit the public, not when they enable them to continue making poor choices. Father loses job, has 4 kids. Yes, help him. poor student gets free education...absolutely, as long as he wants to learn. Welfare recipient having more kids to collect more benefits, no frickin way.
Help those who want to help themselves.

BOOM! Game on!

Ok, if you over mortgage yourself them no mortgage deduction. If you go bankrupt then no tax deductions or college aid.

Plenty of middle class people make poor life decisions but no one questions their benefits.

Boo-YA !

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny thing is the big supporters of this will be the "pro life" folks.

Wow, you are dumb.

Do you know what pro-life means? Why would a pro-lifer agree to less children just because of money?

B/c "pro life" is all about controlling women and slut shaming. Not about kids at all.

Check it out - being "pro life" and anti welfare go hand in hand. Too tired to find cite, though.

You do realize generalizing a group of people doesn't mean you have proved a point.
And don't worry about "citing" your "facts". Your response told me enough about how intelligent you are. I can imagine where your news comes from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny thing is the big supporters of this will be the "pro life" folks.

Wow, you are dumb.

Do you know what pro-life means? Why would a pro-lifer agree to less children just because of money?

B/c "pro life" is all about controlling women and slut shaming. Not about kids at all.

Check it out - being "pro life" and anti welfare go hand in hand. Too tired to find cite, though.

You do realize generalizing a group of people doesn't mean you have proved a point.
And don't worry about "citing" your "facts". Your response told me enough about how intelligent you are. I can imagine where your news comes from.

Isn't this thread generalizing about the motives of poor people who have children???

[Anonymous]

Women should have to get depo shots in order to collect welfare.

[Anonymous]

I do agree that people shouldn't be able to pop out as many kids as they want and just expect the state to pick up the tab. It creates a self-perpetuating cycle in which generations never work - this is a big problem in my country in Europe.
I think you need a carrot and a stick approach - subsidize work, education and training, and phase out incentives like subsidized housing for those who don't work.

[Anonymous]

When it's at my expense as a taxpayer and when you aren't supporting yourself or responsible for yourself, those fundamental rights aren't so fundamental.