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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In case no one has mentioned it in the prior 16 pages - OP, this is a STUPID question.

I disagree - it isn't stupid at all. It brings up a lot of valid concerns and issues that affect all of us. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. If you really want a stupid question, you don't have to look far on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Her husband should be taking care of her and the child so that she doesn't have to collect welfare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Her husband should be taking care of her and the child so that she doesn't have to collect welfare.

Let them eat cake

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Her husband should be taking care of her and the child so that she doesn't have to collect welfare.

Let them eat cake

Where's the goddamn father?

[Anonymous]

The type and amount of aid available to individuals and dependent children varies from state to state.

So...

If you don't like your tax dollars going to those that continue to have kids when they can't afford their own basic needs (food, shelter, etc.) then I strongly suggest you pack your shizzle and move to a state that has more "conservative" unemployment insurance policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Her husband should be taking care of her and the child so that she doesn't have to collect welfare.

Let them eat cake

Where's the goddamn father?

Working two part-time jobs and has no health benefits. You've obviously never heard of the term working poor or travelled outside of your SES bubble. You act as though every family in poverty is a welfare mother poppin' out kids fo' dat gubment cash.

Government waste, corruption, and corporate welfare are much bigger drains on our economy than poor people. But by all means, just stay angry at poor people and ignore the blatant excess of government waste that builds up your backyard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Her husband should be taking care of her and the child so that she doesn't have to collect welfare.

Let them eat cake

Where's the goddamn father?

The fact that you assumed the father is not working says a lot about your biases.

[Anonymous]

Relisha Rudd.

[Anonymous]

There’s no reason whatsoever to think that single mothers, particularly single mothers living in poverty, are the biggest beneficiaries of government spending. By far the largest group of recipients, with money sent to them directly by checks, is not, as conservatives assume, single mothers. No, 53 percent of direct cash entitlements go to people over 65 years old. Another 20 percent goes to disabled people and another 18 percent to working people, leaving only 9 percent for non-disabled, non-working people that conservatives like to pretend make up the bulk of recipients of social spending.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Her husband should be taking care of her and the child so that she doesn't have to collect welfare.

Let them eat cake

Where's the goddamn father?

The fact that you assumed the father is not working says a lot about your biases.

If you re-read above, NOTHING was mentioned about the father. It was presented as though the mom were totally on her own trying to deal with her kid with zero support. And what about the family? No relatives or ANYONE who can pitch in to help?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Her husband should be taking care of her and the child so that she doesn't have to collect welfare.

Let them eat cake

Where's the goddamn father?

Working two part-time jobs and has no health benefits. You've obviously never heard of the term working poor or travelled outside of your SES bubble. You act as though every family in poverty is a welfare mother poppin' out kids fo' dat gubment cash.

Government waste, corruption, and corporate welfare are much bigger drains on our economy than poor people. But by all means, just stay angry at poor people and ignore the blatant excess of government waste that builds up your backyard.

So she can work and he can care for the child. Problem solved

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I think I love you.

[Anonymous]

If she's an RN she should be able to make good money, far more than what her husband makes. Might make more sense for him to be the stay at home dad or for him to adjust his work schedule to work around hers rather than her having to stay home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If she's an RN she should be able to make good money, far more than what her husband makes. Might make more sense for him to be the stay at home dad or for him to adjust his work schedule to work around hers rather than her having to stay home.

But see you don't get to decide that. She's the Mom - maybe she wants to stay home with her child who is sick. Maybe her child wants her Mom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she's an RN she should be able to make good money, far more than what her husband makes. Might make more sense for him to be the stay at home dad or for him to adjust his work schedule to work around hers rather than her having to stay home.

But see you don't get to decide that. She's the Mom - maybe she wants to stay home with her child who is sick. Maybe her child wants her Mom.

Additionally it may be because the mother is a nurse that she is best able to care for said child. Maybe if the mother worked - the father would need to hire a nurse to come in. You just don't know...