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

[Anonymous]

Can some in who actually knows the answer please explain how welfare is distributed? I didn't think there were actual checks anymore, just programs to address needs such as Medicaid, section 8 housing, and WIC. And of course unemployment, but I don't think that's what we are referring to in this thread.

[Anonymous]

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

And men should be chemically castrated, right?

You can't do one without the other.

[Anonymous]

Hey OP, do you include military families in your grand scheme? Because they are increasingly relying on food stamps to get by.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-soldiers-are-increasingly-relying-on-food-stamps/

Or what about employees of Walmart, fast food chains, and other places that pay low wages, who also rely on food stamps?

Why don't you start a campaign to raise wages so that fewer people need to ask for government handouts just to survive? Oh but then you might have to pay an extra quarter for your burger. Well, can't have that.

[Anonymous]

Having children is a natural "right" and the government should not be able to limit that right. Being reliant on government programs is not a right. As long as we continue to subsidize people who do not exercise responsibility by having more children when they cannot afford to take care of them, many of these men and women will not learn responsibility. This is one of the reasons we are in the predicament we are in today - financially and socially.

[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.

To answer the question posed in the subject line, and then expounded upon in this breathtakingly evil rational: No. It would be inhumane. And more than a little fascist.

[Anonymous]

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.

Difference is - these are tax deductions, NOT hand outs by the government. Big difference. The people who are taking advantage of these are generally paying taxes. The people who are taking advantage of the hand outs aren't.

[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.

Difference is - these are tax deductions, NOT hand outs by the government. Big difference. The people who are taking advantage of these are generally paying taxes. The people who are taking advantage of the hand outs aren't.

How dense can you be?

[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.

Difference is - these are tax deductions, NOT hand outs by the government. Big difference. The people who are taking advantage of these are generally paying taxes. The people who are taking advantage of the hand outs aren't.

Tax preferences are characterized all the time as hand-outs. Particularly when they relate to corporations. So, your argument doesn't really hold.

What category do you put a family of four that would pay income taxes absent the child credit and personal exemptions, but as a result of them do not? They're not paying any taxes either. Did they receive a handout? This scenario describes tens of millions of families who earn around $50,000 a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I support public benefits when they benefit the public, not when they enable them to continue making poor choices. Father loses job, has 4 kids. Yes, help him. poor student gets free education...absolutely, as long as he wants to learn. Welfare recipient having more kids to collect more benefits, no frickin way.
Help those who want to help themselves.

BOOM! Game on!

I support making sure children don't go hungry, even if conservatives think denying them food is a game.

Hey liberal,

Put your money where your mouth is. It is common knowledge that conservatives are significantly more charitable than liberals. Conservatives hate the poor? Then why do we personally do so much more than you guys to lend them a hand?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I support public benefits when they benefit the public, not when they enable them to continue making poor choices. Father loses job, has 4 kids. Yes, help him. poor student gets free education...absolutely, as long as he wants to learn. Welfare recipient having more kids to collect more benefits, no frickin way.
Help those who want to help themselves.

BOOM! Game on!

I support making sure children don't go hungry, even if conservatives think denying them food is a game.

Hey liberal,

Put your money where your mouth is. It is common knowledge that conservatives are significantly more charitable than liberals. Conservatives hate the poor? Then why do we personally do so much more than you guys to lend them a hand? [/quote

No, the research shows conservatives are very charitable when it comes to giving to their own churches. They're not especially benevolent when it comes to helping people in need. Which is why we need robust public policy social safety nets. But nice try with that whole changing the subject/misdirection thing. Which Alinsky was that now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Having children is a natural "right" and the government should not be able to limit that right. Being reliant on government programs is not a right. As long as we continue to subsidize people who do not exercise responsibility by having more children when they cannot afford to take care of them, many of these men and women will not learn responsibility. This is one of the reasons we are in the predicament we are in today - financially and socially.

As I said a while back, most states already have caps so that your benefit does not increase when you have additional children on welfare. If that is your problem, then it is already solved.

Conservatives just want reasons to hate on poor people. You perseverate over the idea that someone is cheating you. You have lost the message of the Gospel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Difference is - these are tax deductions, NOT hand outs by the government. Big difference. The people who are taking advantage of these are generally paying taxes. The people who are taking advantage of the hand outs aren't.

How dense can you be?

This is why participating on this discussion board is so difficult. Instead of presenting an argument, too many people throw insults and name call. I generally use the rule that I do not post a comment that I would not SAY IN PERSON to my spouse or children. Is this something you would say to your spouse? If so, you are probably no longer married or not married at all. Is this something you would say to your children? I hope not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I support public benefits when they benefit the public, not when they enable them to continue making poor choices. Father loses job, has 4 kids. Yes, help him. poor student gets free education...absolutely, as long as he wants to learn. Welfare recipient having more kids to collect more benefits, no frickin way.
Help those who want to help themselves.

BOOM! Game on!

I support making sure children don't go hungry, even if conservatives think denying them food is a game.

Hey liberal,

Put your money where your mouth is. It is common knowledge that conservatives are significantly more charitable than liberals. Conservatives hate the poor? Then why do we personally do so much more than you guys to lend them a hand? [/quote

No, the research shows conservatives are very charitable when it comes to giving to their own churches. They're not especially benevolent when it comes to helping people in need. Which is why we need robust public policy social safety nets. But nice try with that whole changing the subject/misdirection thing. Which Alinsky was that now?

Bolding my previous response as I goofed with the editing.

[Anonymous]

Drug testing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Difference is - these are tax deductions, NOT hand outs by the government. Big difference. The people who are taking advantage of these are generally paying taxes. The people who are taking advantage of the hand outs aren't.

Tax preferences are characterized all the time as hand-outs. Particularly when they relate to corporations. So, your argument doesn't really hold.

What category do you put a family of four that would pay income taxes absent the child credit and personal exemptions, but as a result of them do not? They're not paying any taxes either. Did they receive a handout? This scenario describes tens of millions of families who earn around $50,000 a year.

Tax deductions and exemptions are a way to balance out how much people pay in taxes based on their personal situation. This family of 4 is living on the income of the parents. Not on the government. This is actually money THEY HAVE EARNED. Wow, imagine that - they earned it.
Money given to someone who is not paying taxes but cannot afford to support their family is money that SOMEONE ELSE HAS EARNED. I am all for helping people who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own. I am NOT for continuously giving hand outs to those who continue to make poor choices. Play this out years down the road - eventually, if things continue as they are going, we will have MORE people living on government and fewer people subsidizing them. Our nation cannot continue like this. It is simply unsustainable.