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

[Anonymous]

This is the problem:

[Anonymous]

Whatever y'all mofos just conditioned to dehumanized poor folks.

[Anonymous]

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

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1

Good. Then don't take government money when you participate in baby making. That's the bottom line.

[Anonymous]

I can't believe that this thread has gone on for 15 pages! If you care about kids so much, pay attention to your own, rather than hating others' kids.

No, wait! Everyone on this thread was well past reproductive age decades ago!

[Anonymous]

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

No. No one is talking about sterilization.

[Anonymous]

One of my really good friends is on welfare because her baby got cancer . Before that she was doing fine. She is a nurse but her child is dying and instead of working she is with her daughter everyday. She is a young mother right now in her late 20's who one day might want another child. Should she be punished with sterilization because her baby got cancer.

[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.

+1

[Anonymous]

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

+1000000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think OP has a great idea, and we should extend it to remove children from situations that are likely to cause them to be burdens to society -

Statistics show that children from abusive households are likely to repeat the cycle of abuse, so if parents commit abuse they should lose their children, and, of course, if a woman marries a man who is an abuser, clearly she makes bad choices that have adverse impacts on her children so her children should be raised by people who can teach them to make better choices and she should be precluded from having more children.

Similarly, alcoholism has been shown to be both genetic and environmental, so if one parent is an alcoholic (or suffers any kind of addiction, actually), then the children should be taken away and the parents prohibited from having more. After all, the non-addicted spouse made the bad choice to marry someone with an addiction problem.

And, of course, statistics show that children of two parent homes do better than children of single parents, so after a divorce the children should be taken away and given to a stable, two parent home, and the single mother should be prohibited from having children unless she can demonstrate that they will be raised in a stable, two-parent home.

Once you start focusing on how things adversely impact society, there's no end to what you can achieve with your good intentions.

Exactly!

[Anonymous]

Thank goodness none of you a-holes are legislators

[Anonymous]

You buttholes act like a few provisions here/there are going to magically make it possible to pay less taxes. NEWS FLASH!!! It won't. Doesn't matter if you make it damn near impossible for people to get welfare you'll still pay out the yin yang the money will just go toward unnecessary tanks or repaving perfectly fine sidewalks or curing cancer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1

Good. Then don't take government money when you participate in baby making. That's the bottom line.

Once again- does that include tax credits for kids and college tuition? Or are you only advocating changes that impact the poor and not middle-to-upper income brackets?

This is a serious question- what problem are you trying to fix? Is it out of control goverment spending? Because if that's the case, you really should look at the bigger problem of corporate welfare. Here's my proposal- any company that accepts public funding of any kind must provide a full time jobs that will allow their employees to live above the poverty line and not ship jobs offshore. That would kill many birds with one stone. Deal?

[Anonymous]

Nobody has answered the question: Why is it either/or? Why do you keep saying we need to work on things like why we build tanks or give corporate welfare and other abuses INSTEAD OF or FIRST, BEFORE dealing with anything else?

I happen to think we need to work on ALL of the problems.

It's a legitimate question - but as long as you are clouded by partisan bias it's nothing but gamesmanship - and out of that will never come any solutions to deal with ANY of the problems.

[Anonymous]

Agreed completely. Partisan bickering is out of control. Personally, I think the root of THAT problem is the jerrymandering done by both parties. I forget where I read it but approximately 25% of the seats in the House are ever really up for grabs. That means about 75% are solid Dem/Rep. So the biggest challenge for most of the House comes from within the ranks of their own party and feeds into the extreme partisan bickering that is seen from most candidates. Right now, I think its worse from Republicans because they have been in a position of weakness for a while. But both parties are to blame.

Personally, I would love to see fiscally conservative, socially progressive candidates at all levels of government, in every branch. But it drives me nuts to see a guy like Rick Santorum pushed front-and-center in the last presidential election. Between his homophobia and "I wouldn't cut $1 from defense" statements, all he succeeded in doing was drive Mitt Romney to a fake position farther to the right.

But both parties want big government. They just pick different talking points to get elected. There is no significant difference between any of the candidates with regard to fiscal conservatism. At least I haven't seen any. I mean, candidates will pick and choose little nuggets over which they will squabble. But "welfare mothers" are not bankrupting this country. Super PACs, lobbyists, and cronyism are a much bigger problem. But you won't hear any candidates- especially in the House- talk about tackling those issues. Not when they are in a perpetual election cycle with attacks from within their own party.

Bi-partisianship = weakness.