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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh wow isn't it so fun to blame the poor for all of society’s ills and to try to shame them into eschewing sex until their poverty magically disappears!

Nobody is "blaming the poor for all of society's ills." We are blaming a system that allows poverty to perpetuate.
And, the poverty will not magically disappear. In fact, the poverty will "magically grow" since we are incentivizing bad behavior.
Call it what you want - we are in essence, rewarding those who make poor choices by not expecting them to ever be accountable for their actions.

Being poor sounds like a walk in the park, the way you tell it.

This is not about the truly poor. The subject of the post is the welfare recipients who continue to have children despite the fact that they have not taken the time to "build a nest" in order to nurture them, care for them, feed them. If you think that our current system does a great job of helping people get out of poverty, then why do we continue to have millions of people in poverty today? Our system is broken.
I do believe most people believe in providing assistance to those who are making an effort to help themselves - include me in this belief. Perhaps if we could find a way to stop incentivizing this destructive behavior of having children when you cannot afford it - YES, destructive - to the child and to society - then perhaps we could start working on really making a dent in reducing poverty by providing assistance, training, education, etc. to those who are looking to make something of their lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe if women started realizing that they shouldn't spread their legs for a man who isn't able and willing to provide for her and her kids, things would start to change. A.) there'd be a lot less teen pregnancies, single moms, out-of-wedlock kids, et cetera and B.) men would have to start getting their shit together and get themselves a solid living and start doing the right thing if they want a piece of ass.[/quote


Yes, sure. "Maybe" indeed! Please describe how you are going to get all women to start realizing this. What program are you going to support to start making this change happen?

Do you know what really works to help reduce teen & accidental pregnancies? Free contraception, free health care, better education, improved socio-economic conditions. Start working on those things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The practical impact of the Pentagon's accounting dysfunction is evident at the Defense Logistics Agency, which buys, stores and ships much of the Defense Department's supplies - everything from airplane parts to zippers for uniforms.

It has way too much stuff.



"We have about $14 billion of inventory for lots of reasons, and probably half of that is excess to what we need," Navy Vice Admiral Mark Harnitchek, the director of the DLA, said at an August 7, 2013, meeting with aviation industry executives, as reported on the agency's web site.

And the DLA keeps buying more of what it already has too much of. A document the Pentagon supplied to Congress shows that as of September 30, 2012, the DLA and the military services had $733 million worth of supplies and equipment on order that was already stocked in excess amounts on warehouse shelves. That figure was up 21% from $609 million a year earlier. The Defense Department defines "excess inventory" as anything more than a three-year supply.

Consider the "vehicular control arm," part of the front suspension on the military's ubiquitous High Mobility Multipurpose Vehicles, or Humvees. As of November 2008, the DLA had 15,000 of the parts in stock, equal to a 14-year supply, according to an April 2013 Pentagon inspector general's report.

Ha, if you think DoD is bad, you should take a look at GSA. GSA has abandoned buildings all across the country. The agency cannot reconcile their assets and are unaware of some of these buildings. There are buildings that have been abandoned or unused for decades, that taxpayers pay to maintain. Some of these buildings could be sold because they are in developers target zones, but the paperwork to get rid of government property is horrendous, so The government just put chains on the doors and no trespassing signs up and walk away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh wow isn't it so fun to blame the poor for all of society’s ills and to try to shame them into eschewing sex until their poverty magically disappears!

Nobody is "blaming the poor for all of society's ills." We are blaming a system that allows poverty to perpetuate.
And, the poverty will not magically disappear. In fact, the poverty will "magically grow" since we are incentivizing bad behavior.
Call it what you want - we are in essence, rewarding those who make poor choices by not expecting them to ever be accountable for their actions.

Being poor sounds like a walk in the park, the way you tell it.

This is not about the truly poor. The subject of the post is the welfare recipients who continue to have children despite the fact that they have not taken the time to "build a nest" in order to nurture them, care for them, feed them. If you think that our current system does a great job of helping people get out of poverty, then why do we continue to have millions of people in poverty today? Our system is broken.
I do believe most people believe in providing assistance to those who are making an effort to help themselves - include me in this belief. Perhaps if we could find a way to stop incentivizing this destructive behavior of having children when you cannot afford it - YES, destructive - to the child and to society - then perhaps we could start working on really making a dent in reducing poverty by providing assistance, training, education, etc. to those who are looking to make something of their lives.

"Forthwith, any and all procreation for those who are receiving public assistance is strictly prohibited until they reach a predetermined annual income as designate by their poverty-probation case worker."

First of all, do you realize how sickeningly elitist that sounds? That's completely asinine, ignorant, and arrogant for a government "of the people, by the people, for the people" to be so bold as to put a ban/limit on a woman's right to reproduce. Second of all, the whole concept is unnecessary. The myth of the irresponsible "welfare slut" who can't close her legs having babies by the dozen and the myth of the "welfare queen" who deliberately gets pregnant to abuse the system are just that - MYTHS. The average family on welfare has 2.8 children and furthermore, only one out of every 10 mothers on welfare has more than 3 children. The final point I would like to make (although I could go on and on) is that even in instances when the seemingly destructive behavior of having children when you cannot afford it occurs - it isn't guaranteed destruction. How many accomplished individuals speak of coming from impoverished homes with their parent(s) working 3/4 jobs to make ends for meet their children? How many success stories have come from situations where a woman was on welfare and pregnant again - but despite her seemingly dire circumstances managed to make something of herself and make a better life for her children?

You know what would really help - if people stop generalizing and stereotyping people who are on public assistance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ha, if you think DoD is bad, you should take a look at GSA. GSA has abandoned buildings all across the country. The agency cannot reconcile their assets and are unaware of some of these buildings. There are buildings that have been abandoned or unused for decades, that taxpayers pay to maintain. Some of these buildings could be sold because they are in developers target zones, but the paperwork to get rid of government property is horrendous, so The government just put chains on the doors and no trespassing signs up and walk away.

PP- I agree with you. Its just the DoD was low-hanging fruit. My general point with that specific example to illustrate is that waste and corruption is bankrupting this country. It can be the Pentagon or it can be police escorts for Nick Saban when Alabama comes to town. It is massive, mind-boggling, and out of control.

But people get mad at welfare-mothers poppin' out mo' babies jus' fo' dat gub'ment check to spend on Newports, 40s, and scratch-offs.

All the while, living in DC/NVA which is propped up by far more government cash than po' black folk suck out of the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh wow isn't it so fun to blame the poor for all of society’s ills and to try to shame them into eschewing sex until their poverty magically disappears!

Nobody is "blaming the poor for all of society's ills." We are blaming a system that allows poverty to perpetuate.
And, the poverty will not magically disappear. In fact, the poverty will "magically grow" since we are incentivizing bad behavior.
Call it what you want - we are in essence, rewarding those who make poor choices by not expecting them to ever be accountable for their actions.

Being poor sounds like a walk in the park, the way you tell it.

This is not about the truly poor. The subject of the post is the welfare recipients who continue to have children despite the fact that they have not taken the time to "build a nest" in order to nurture them, care for them, feed them. If you think that our current system does a great job of helping people get out of poverty, then why do we continue to have millions of people in poverty today? Our system is broken.
I do believe most people believe in providing assistance to those who are making an effort to help themselves - include me in this belief. Perhaps if we could find a way to stop incentivizing this destructive behavior of having children when you cannot afford it - YES, destructive - to the child and to society - then perhaps we could start working on really making a dent in reducing poverty by providing assistance, training, education, etc. to those who are looking to make something of their lives.

"Forthwith, any and all procreation for those who are receiving public assistance is strictly prohibited until they reach a predetermined annual income as designate by their poverty-probation case worker."

First of all, do you realize how sickeningly elitist that sounds? That's completely asinine, ignorant, and arrogant for a government "of the people, by the people, for the people" to be so bold as to put a ban/limit on a woman's right to reproduce. Second of all, the whole concept is unnecessary. The myth of the irresponsible "welfare slut" who can't close her legs having babies by the dozen and the myth of the "welfare queen" who deliberately gets pregnant to abuse the system are just that - MYTHS. The average family on welfare has 2.8 children and furthermore, only one out of every 10 mothers on welfare has more than 3 children. The final point I would like to make (although I could go on and on) is that even in instances when the seemingly destructive behavior of having children when you cannot afford it occurs - it isn't guaranteed destruction. How many accomplished individuals speak of coming from impoverished homes with their parent(s) working 3/4 jobs to make ends for meet their children? How many success stories have come from situations where a woman was on welfare and pregnant again - but despite her seemingly dire circumstances managed to make something of herself and make a better life for her children?

You know what would really help - if people stop generalizing and stereotyping people who are on public assistance.

How's all that rosy-colored-glasses optimism about success stories about impoverished moms on welfare working out in places like Anacostia or Greenleaf Gardens? Not so good. An anecdote or two doesn't do much, let alone "dispell the myths" - they aren't "myths" - just go check out some of these communities for yourself.

[Anonymous]

Misogynist vitriol against single women is a perfect way to keep conservative audiences from really thinking about the problems facing this country. The real problem is that most of us in the working or middle class are watching our economic opportunities disappear while the richest one percent continue to hoard most of the nation’s wealth. Instead of coming up with outrageous ideas to keep the poor and disadvantaged from supposedly wreaking havoc on our economy we need to instead start investigating the other end of the spectrum and find a way to stop the rich from sucking us all dry.

[Anonymous]

Why is it either/or? Why can't we work on fixing ALL problems? If we wait til one's fixed to work on the other, problems will just carry on.

[Anonymous]

Maybe if men started realizing that they shouldn't give their sperm to a woman who isn't able and willing to provide for her kids, things would start to change. A.) there'd be a lot less teen pregnancies, single moms, out-of-wedlock kids, abortions, etc

Fixed that for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe if men started realizing that they shouldn't give their sperm to a woman who isn't able and willing to provide for her kids, things would start to change. A.) there'd be a lot less teen pregnancies, single moms, out-of-wedlock kids, abortions, etc

Fixed that for you.

Men are dogs who don't care where their sperm goes. Back in your court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about requiring people on welfare to get a birth control implant in their arm? Only if we can get one for men AND women, though.

Is this a serious question?

Yes.

No one is forcing someone to get on birth control. But IF you want to receive welfare, and there's no medical indication that birth control would harm you, why not make birth control a condition of welfare? Serious question.

Just as if we choose to drive a car we must get a drivers license and car insurance. No one is forcing you to drive and to have those things. But if you choose to drive, you have to play by the rules. What if BC is a condition of welfare? What right does that violate? We're not talking about state forced, secret, irreversible sterilization, but a temporary medication that, while receiving public assistance, prevents pregnancy. Why is that so horrible? You can take it out and go off welfare tomorrow if you wish.

Gee, if people want to be treated for medical issues, maybe they should have to buy insurance. That seems logical, too. Yet without an insurance mandate, any dumbs clutching his chest will get treated. And when the bill for that medical care bankrupts him, he'll qualify for medicaid.

Not sure how that relates to the above. I support the ACA. So let's try again:

How does it violate an individual's rights if, as a condition of receiving public assistance, they must get on government provided, government paid, temporary, fully disclosed, removable birth control for the duration of said assistance?

Well, there's the religious freedom component. Some people don't believe in artificial birth control because of their religious beliefs. You're going to get quite a few churches and conservatives who equate birth control with abortion upset with you on that. And then there's the medical question for some who cannot take hormonal birth control -- women who are at risk for strokes, for example. And women over 40, who are often told not to take hormonal birth control. What about a woman who says she's menopausal? Are you going to set up clinics for all those who receive public assistance, to figure out whether a woman is actually menopausal. Or to administer this "temporary, fully disclosed, removable birth control" - esp. if it has to be an IUD instead of pills for medical reasons.

I think you grant exceptions for those medically unable to use BC. Set an age where you don't need BC anymore. Otherwise, complain to your pastor about BC being against your conscience, perhaps your Church will provide you with charity instead of the taxpayers.

[Anonymous]

Working with young, unwed mothers I found that many of them couldn't see a future, so the idea of having a baby was not a threat to their future. It was idea of having someone to love and take care of. Many were raised by their mothers, lived with their mothers or grandmothers, and had "strong," female role models.

They were strongly defensive of their children, and intended to take care of their children any way they could, even if it meant getting a check.

And it's hard to pay a sitter when you work at a low-wage job, sometimes the sitter wants more than you make.

[Anonymous]

Simple fact of the matter is poor people don't mean shit especially those who are women and minorities and that's the prevailing stereotype about pregnant moms on welfare they're either black or Hispanic in other words subhuman, they're animals as far as society is concerned so the right to dictate their freedoms and the conditions of their support services is not even up for discussion, they're animals it's up to the rich civilized folk to decide what's in their best interests. Nevermind that most welfare recipients are white because while it may be true it's not what the stereotype says and that's all that matters is the image the impression the perception of the underprivileged and the only argument is about how to handle these animals without being too apathetic or too sympathetic.

[Anonymous]

Working with young, unwed mothers I found that many of them couldn't see a future, so the idea of having a baby was not a threat to their future. It was idea of having someone to love and take care of. Many were raised by their mothers, lived with their mothers or grandmothers, and had "strong," female role models.

They were strongly defensive of their children, and intended to take care of their children any way they could, even if it meant getting a check.

And it's hard to pay a sitter when you work at a low-wage job, sometimes the sitter wants more than you make.

Most people love their children. But, what happens when these "children" who have children decide they want to go out and play? And, they do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Working with young, unwed mothers I found that many of them couldn't see a future, so the idea of having a baby was not a threat to their future. It was idea of having someone to love and take care of. Many were raised by their mothers, lived with their mothers or grandmothers, and had "strong," female role models.

They were strongly defensive of their children, and intended to take care of their children any way they could, even if it meant getting a check.

And it's hard to pay a sitter when you work at a low-wage job, sometimes the sitter wants more than you make.

They are taught by all those in their environment to not see a future and to not even bother trying. If you pulled that girl out at a young age and raised her in an entirely different environment I bet she would have a very different view.