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

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

I think it would be slippery slope down the hill to forcing women to abort or to undergo sterilization of one kind or another.

And then if a woman did become pregnant, what would you do? Toss her off of welfare so that two people suffer?

Its just not as easy as you think. There's a ton of community work to be done; you could easily get involved in mentoring through a variety of different programs and try to change lives one at a time.

[Anonymous]

Having children is a human right. It may not always be a good idea, but it is a human right. On top of that, the government has no ability to enforce the policy, because once they have a child the government can't cut off an innocent dependent.

We need to stop with the idea that we own the poor because they get some sort of support. We don't. The poor are owed dignity and respect. That's in the Bible, and woe to those of us who fail to accept it.

[Anonymous]

In countries without welfare the poor populate like crazy. I support free birth control options for welfare recipients, but it can't and shouldn't be forced.

[Anonymous]

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

[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.

Don't blame her, blame the system.

People will take what you allow them to have. Not everyone, unfortunately, has integrity.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

Boom. Thread over

[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.

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!

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

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!

Ok, if you over mortgage yourself them no mortgage deduction. If you go bankrupt then no tax deductions or college aid.

Plenty of middle class people make poor life decisions but no one questions their benefits.

[Anonymous]

Disagree. Fundamental right.

[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.

I would love for someone to prove, mathematically, that it makes financial sense to have more kids to get more government revenue AND greater NET income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Having children is a human right. It may not always be a good idea, but it is a human right. On top of that, the government has no ability to enforce the policy, because once they have a child the government can't cut off an innocent dependent.

We need to stop with the idea that we own the poor because they get some sort of support. We don't. The poor are owed dignity and respect. That's in the Bible, and woe to those of us who fail to accept it.

It is hard to respect someone like the OP described. And I dont think anyone owns the poor if they cut benefits. Its not like I am forcing them to do something for no pay. Its more the other way around, the welfare abusers own the public since some are getting paid to do nothing. I was collecting unemployment and trust me, that wasnt going to last forever. Luckily, I found another job.

[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.

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.