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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:291 billion a year in federal, state and local taxpayer dollars to support social welfare. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.html

How much a year for corporate welfare? Is social welfare really dwarfed by corporate welfare? Or are they both a big expense?

According to this article from the Federalist (note, source with an agenda, so take it with a grain of salt) - http://thefederalist.com/2013/09/30/calculating-the-real-cost-of-corporate-welfare/

1) The Cato Institute estimates that the U.S. federal government spends $100 billion a year on direct subsidies and grants to US companies.

2) A New York Times investigation found that states, counties and cities give up over $80 billion each year to companies for business incentives at the State, County, and City levels.

3) The Tax Foundation has concluded that ‘special tax provisions’ cost taxpayers over $100 billion per year. Corporate benefits include items such as Graduated Corporate Income, Inventory Property Sales, Research and Experimentation Tax Credit, Accelerated Depreciation, and Deferred taxes.

(The article is a response to an article from the liberal group Common Dreams. The Federalist author discounts some additional items that Common Dreams cites as "corporate welfare" and then goes on to list some of his own pet peeves. The three points about are what they both agree on.)

So that adds to about $280M, which is about the same as the social welfare budget.

But we're not talking about the whole thing. We're talking about whether mothers should be prevented from having additional children while on welfare - so a very, very small slice of that $290M pie.

[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.

We spend billions of dollars every year giving foreign aid to countries that are poor as shit...did we tell the people in Afghanistan they had to stop fucking or we wouldn't give no more aid?
How bout that whole USA for Africa thing...y'all remember that? I mean it wadn't tax dollars but still, we was sending aid and had Michael Jackson and all them celebrities singing talking about "We Are the World"...why didn't we also put in a verse telling them they had to stop fucking or they wouldn't get any funds?
I'm being silly of course but think about it - why impose some gangsta shit like that here on our own soil that we wouldn't even impose on somebody else?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Have you at any significant point in your life not had enough food?



Yes. There were several periods in my life when I had to get by on not much, for example the equivalent of $7 a week for food, ate pretty sparsely and went hungry much of the time. This is why I get annoyed when people want to just brush it all off and continually make excuses, saying, "oh, you don't know how it is" and "oh, you don't understand" - yes I fucking do, I grew up dirt poor, with a single mom who was barely around, a whole host of problems - and no other family to help, I have been homeless myself and managed to turn it around - and in fact I did so with far less help and support than the typical FARMS family in DC has available to them.

And yes, I do think corporate welfare needs to stop also - but that's a separate issue. BOTH are problems, and bringing one up doesn't absolve or excuse the other, it's just a dodge and deflection - so don't even bother trying.

So your plan grew out of your contempt for your own mother?

[Anonymous]

There's an old saying. When life hands you lemons, make lemonade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's an old saying. When life hands you lemons, make lemonade.

and when you have a pantry with sugar that probably sounds really simple.

[Anonymous]

Here's the people abusing welfare that you SHOULD be worried about:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/wash-couple-starved-disabled-teen-stole-welfare-money-meant-care-cops-article-1.1759211

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's the people abusing welfare that you SHOULD be worried about:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/wash-couple-starved-disabled-teen-stole-welfare-money-meant-care-cops-article-1.1759211

+1

[Anonymous]

Disagree.My 1st son is on medicaid, but my 2nd son who has a different father, is not.All his expenses are paid by his father.
What OP probably meant was that welfare recipients should not be popping out kids who also would be on welfare.They can still pop put kids who wouldn't be on welfare.Shortly, welfare recipients should not "be require not to have children while on welfare".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Disagree.My 1st son is on medicaid, but my 2nd son who has a different father, is not.All his expenses are paid by his father.
What OP probably meant was that welfare recipients should not be popping out kids who also would be on welfare.They can still pop put kids who wouldn't be on welfare.Shortly, welfare recipients should not "be require not to have children while on welfare".

So, if I am a 12 year old girl in Hancock, MD should I be hormone-tested every month so that I can get a Depo shot as soon as I physically mature enough to ovulate?