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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ah the beauty of democracy. Points can be made arguments can be asserted and opinions can be insisted but at the end of the day the people decide what is the law via vote and not forums.

Very true. Perhaps the people who think that welfare recipients should be on birth control would also accept the idea that you have to take a test to demonstrate understanding of the issues before you're allowed to vote. After all, voting is very important, and an ignorant electorate could do significant damage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:While I agree that the government should stay out of reproductive issues, I still feel that we are in our rights to not provide government assistance (tax dollars) to those that continue to have kids when they can't afford their own basic needs (food, shelter, etc.). If youalready have kids and are down on your luck, absolutely you should get some help, but the second you pop out another mouth for us to feed, then your support ends.

Yeah, yeah "why punish the innocent child". I totally get that, but if the parents are that stupid to make the right decisions, then lets throw them on birth control and we'll make the decisions for them.

Laws do exist to prevent the dumb from killing themselves, such as seatbelts, so why not restrictions to prevent a burden, however slight, on our tax dollars. Not to mention that the odds are high that the vicious cycle will continue.

I bring this up when I found out that a co-worker of mine's daughter, who is 17, is having another baby by another boyfriend. The coworker is 34. Imagine being a grandma at 33. The daughter is on welfare and at the same time was getting tattoso, piercings, nails, hair dyes and cell phones since she kept losing them. She lives in subsidized housing and has a roomate that she collects from, the roomate paying more than what the daughter is paying for rent.
The co-worker thinks it is great how smart her daughter is. Stupid breeds stupid.

Are we likewise within our rights to not provide corporate subsidies to Fortune 500 companies?

[Anonymous]

Look, again people are going astray. YES, we should rein in corporate subsidies to Fortune 500s, or at least place preconditions on them which are beneficial to the nation and which reduce abuse - like, "if you are a Fortune 500 receiving subsidies, you should not be offshoring profits or outsourcing American jobs abroad, you should have restrictions on your PACs and lobbying and you should be fully compliant with all laws for worker safety, environmental regulations, you should be actively working toward sustainable, environmentally friendly practices" and so on. Taxpayer dollars should ultimately never come without strings attached to induce more socially responsible behavior to benefit the nation. I would be fully in favor of things like that.

Ultimately it's not about the right of the poor to have kids or be irresponsible - it's whether they have the right to have their irresponsible behavior and also receive taxpayer funds without any accountability or strings attached toward more socially responsible behavior.

[Anonymous]

Should Child Protective Services be able to sterilize women who are reported abusers?

[Anonymous]

Ultimately it's not about the right of the poor to have kids or be irresponsible - it's whether they have the right to have their irresponsible behavior and also receive taxpayer funds without any accountability or strings attached toward more socially responsible behavior.

I'll ask the question again. Do you have any evidence this is happening?

When Florida implemented a requirement for drug testing as a condition for receiving public assistance, it turned out to cost far more to run the program than the program actually saved - because far fewer public assistance recipients were actually using drugs than anyone associated with implementing the law actually believed. (Academics and others who actually did research in this area warned the Florida legislature that this was actually the case, but since when has any legislature actually let facts get in the way of a law their constituents believe should be enacted?)

So, since your presumption (so far unsupported by any evidence) is that it will save the public money if those receiving public assistance are required to be on birth control, do you have any evidence to support your position that (a) this is a problem, (b) that this proposed solution will actually address the problem and (c) that this proposed solution will cost less than the problem does in the first place?

[Anonymous]

Oh I got a good one...should atheist parents be allowed to receive welfare?
I mean isn't their lack of faith and failure to impart religious values onto their children irresponsible?

[Anonymous]

How about making people on welfare get a degree before they receive benefits? I mean if they're uneducated they'll likely to remain impoverished and continue to milk the system. Only people with at least an Associates should be allowed to receive aid right!!

[Anonymous]

Should welfare recipients be required not to watch porn while on welfare? I mean if they watch that stuff they'll get horny and BAM!!! baby on the way. Maybe welfare recipients shouldn't be allowed to date either...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, yeah "why punish the innocent child". I totally get that, but if the parents are that stupid to make the right decisions, then lets throw them on birth control and we'll make the decisions for them.

Wait a minute - so in addition to working to support myself AND people on welfare I now have to make decisions for myself AND for people on welfare?
GEEZUS WHEN DOES IT STOP!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh I got a good one...should atheist parents be allowed to receive welfare?
I mean isn't their lack of faith and failure to impart religious values onto their children irresponsible?

Irresponsible? Hell no. It's responsible. They are teaching their kids self-reliance, self-determination and responsibility rather than pumping their heads full of false hope, fairy tales about big invisible people in the sky, and a belief in the paranormal versus a belief in science. Religion is not the basis or ultimate authority for morality and values.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, yeah "why punish the innocent child". I totally get that, but if the parents are that stupid to make the right decisions, then lets throw them on birth control and we'll make the decisions for them.

Wait a minute - so in addition to working to support myself AND people on welfare I now have to make decisions for myself AND for people on welfare?
GEEZUS WHEN DOES IT STOP!!

If someone is having kids that they can't afford to house and feed then it's obvious they aren't capable of making sound decisions for themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh I got a good one...should atheist parents be allowed to receive welfare?
I mean isn't their lack of faith and failure to impart religious values onto their children irresponsible?

Irresponsible? Hell no. It's responsible. They are teaching their kids self-reliance, self-determination and responsibility rather than pumping their heads full of false hope, fairy tales about big invisible people in the sky, and a belief in the paranormal versus a belief in science. Religion is not the basis or ultimate authority for morality and values.

(Psst...Not the PP, but this was sarcasm. As a fellow atheist, let me say that you're helping us look like the humorless ranters that the believers claim we are. )

[Anonymous]

Welfare began in the 1930's during the Great Depression. The US government responded to the overwhelming number of families and individuals in need of aid by creating a welfare program that would give assistance to those who had little or no income. (Of course in those days dust bowl families were responsible and never had additional children).

The US welfare system stayed in the hands of the federal government for the next sixty-one years. Many Americans were unhappy with the welfare system, claiming that individuals were abusing the welfare program by not applying for jobs, having more children just to get more aid, and staying unmarried so as to qualify for greater benefits. In 1996 the Republican Congress passed a reform law signed by President Clinton that gave the control of the welfare system back to the states.

So taking that into consideration I've got a solution.
If you don't want your taxpayer dollars going to droves irresponsible families having baby after baby...move.
There are plenty of states with family cap policies which deny additional benefits or reduce the cash grant to families who have additional children while on assistance.

Problem solved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh I got a good one...should atheist parents be allowed to receive welfare?
I mean isn't their lack of faith and failure to impart religious values onto their children irresponsible?

Irresponsible? Hell no. It's responsible. They are teaching their kids self-reliance, self-determination and responsibility rather than pumping their heads full of false hope, fairy tales about big invisible people in the sky, and a belief in the paranormal versus a belief in science. Religion is not the basis or ultimate authority for morality and values.

(Psst...Not the PP, but this was sarcasm. As a fellow atheist, let me say that you're helping us look like the humorless ranters that the believers claim we are. )

If it was supposed to be sarcasm then a. ) I'd suggest PP work on their humor skills a bit more and b.) if it was trying to be directed at a supposed conservative vs. liberal divide then I'd say it was miscalculated.

[Anonymous]

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.

Boom. Thread over

+ a million!