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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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...

I'm the one who posted about the baby with cancer. Both parents are not working as the baby is doing very bad. They had to go out of state for her treatment. Both parents want to spend every minute with their baby while they can. They also need each other to get through this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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...

I'm the one who posted about the baby with cancer. Both parents are not working as the baby is doing very bad. They had to go out of state for her treatment. Both parents want to spend every minute with their baby while they can. They also need each other to get through this.

I am a conservative. In my opinion, situations like this are why we have federal programs to help when people are “down on their luck.” This seems to be a temporary situation. I hope the baby gets better - and, I hope the parents stay strong. I cannot imagine what they are going through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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]

Every child born in my county costs the taxpayer 247,000 in subsidized education.

[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.

If someone else is having to pick up the tab, they have some say. Comes with the territory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No company that outsources jobs or offshores money should EVER get any tax break let alone a subsidy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Every child born in my county costs the taxpayer 247,000 in subsidized education.

Retirees also cost the tax payer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every child born in my county costs the taxpayer 247,000 in subsidized education.

Retirees also cost the tax payer

I agree. But I think you misunderstand. Every American child born to American parents in my county gets handed an education worth $250K. I have a large house, but I will get back a full 21 years worth of property taxes, because I have two children. If we have a third, it will take the county 32 years before I actually start paying for the cost of running the county itself.

[Anonymous]

^I would change the above from "an education WORTH $250k" to "an education COSTING $250k" - jury's out on whether it's worth the $250k. There's a lot of bloat in the American public school system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Every child born in my county costs the taxpayer 247,000 in subsidized education.

Every child in this country hopefully becomes a taxpayer someday. They will more than reimburse us for the cost of educating them.

Do you really want your catheter being changed by someone without a basic public education???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every child born in my county costs the taxpayer 247,000 in subsidized education.

Every child in this country hopefully becomes a taxpayer someday. They will more than reimburse us for the cost of educating them.

Do you really want your catheter being changed by someone without a basic public education???

You are not getting the point. I , a rich person, get a quarter of a million dollar subsidy per child.

[Anonymous]

So?
tax money should go to children. Unless a country like Uganda is your ideal.
Every child has to go to school, everywhere, except some third world backwater remote locales

[Anonymous]

Every child born in my county costs the taxpayer 247,000 in subsidized education.

And, you think kids in the US don't get close to that? Each child gets at least 13 years costing upwards of $10000 per year--special needs kids get far, far more than that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every child born in my county costs the taxpayer 247,000 in subsidized education.

Every child in this country hopefully becomes a taxpayer someday. They will more than reimburse us for the cost of educating them.

Do you really want your catheter being changed by someone without a basic public education???

You are not getting the point. I , a rich person, get a quarter of a million dollar subsidy per child.

If you find that so ridiculous, pay for private school instead!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every child born in my county costs the taxpayer 247,000 in subsidized education.

Every child in this country hopefully becomes a taxpayer someday. They will more than reimburse us for the cost of educating them.

Do you really want your catheter being changed by someone without a basic public education???

You are not getting the point. I , a rich person, get a quarter of a million dollar subsidy per child.

If you find that so ridiculous, pay for private school instead!

I am merely pointing out that we all get subsidies. Some of us admit to them, and some do not.

I am happy paying taxes to care for the poor or disadvantaged, so the idea that the state subsidizes education is not a hypocrisy to me.