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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Where do you think the money from their churches goes? I know that the money from MY CHURCH goes to help homeless shelters and food pantries in my community. So, try again.

[Anonymous]

No more kids and drug testing. Not sure how you could do the birth control for males, other than vasectomy.

[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.

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.

OK, then:

1. Poor people pay taxes. They get money pulled out of their paychecks that they don't get back.
2. A tax credit is financially indistinguishable from a subsidy, especially the EITCs which can cause you to get a refund.

Sorry, apparently I mistakenly believed this had already been covered a million times before on the political board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Drug testing

It's already been tried. The positive tests were so low that the cost of testing everyone vastly outweighed the savings from the few people who got cut off. It turns out that mothers of small children aren't all sitting around getting high.

[Anonymous]

Here's my story.My kid has medicaid since his father who is required by divorce decree to provide health insurance, hasn't done so, and I can't afford to buy it.I did have a second child, but his father pays 100% of his expenses-wants to, insist on it-it's his kid.Well, DC medicaid put my newborn also on DC medicaid.I called them and said that we don't need him to be on DC medicaid.I was told that they "don't separate siblings". I called twice, got the same lady, got cursed out and she also hung up on me.She said that if I don't want the medicaid for my newborn, they will also take it from my older son-"they don't separate sibling".
so come out that they will take it from somebody who needs it and give it to somebody who doesn't.
Wrote them a letter-mailed it and faxed it- making my younger son not part of "my household", but part of his "father's household".Hope it works.

[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?

Is it really? Don't you give to god? Not sure where that money goes or what he does with it! It's common knowledge that you are jackasses then try to "fix it" with saying sorry or going to church. Keep your money, don't be a jackass to begin with.Talking about my own experienceS by the way... How can conservative church going people be so mean?Ah, they'll throw a $20 on Sunday, and good to go!

[Anonymous]

OP, if you're going to toss out a big idea, then you need to follow up with details of how you'd implement it.

So, how exactly are you going to enforce the "no children" rule? Are you going to force women to undergo temporary sterilization to receive benefits? Then what about men too? Are you going to simply take all benefits away if a woman becomes pregnant, making her face the choice of terminating a pregnancy in order to keep whatever support she was getting? And if she doesn't get an abortion, then you are satisfied with having babies & children living in abject poverty with no government support in order to prove your lesson, sending them into the ugly cycle of poverty all over again?

When people have only bad choices before them, it's pretty difficult to make a good one. How about if you support training and education programs to help people get jobs, drug treatment programs to help people, child care subsidies so that parents can actually go to work, and raising the minimum wage so that people who do work don't have to ask for food stamps just to survive?

You would punish many innocent people just to get at a few bad apples.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Disagree. Fundamental right.

There is no such thing as a fundamental right. There are only rights that we, as a culture and society, decide to grant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disagree. Fundamental right.

There is no such thing as a fundamental right. There are only rights that we, as a culture and society, decide to grant.

Well, the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

[Anonymous]

I think OP has a great idea, and we should extend it to remove children from situations that are likely to cause them to be burdens to society -

Statistics show that children from abusive households are likely to repeat the cycle of abuse, so if parents commit abuse they should lose their children, and, of course, if a woman marries a man who is an abuser, clearly she makes bad choices that have adverse impacts on her children so her children should be raised by people who can teach them to make better choices and she should be precluded from having more children.

Similarly, alcoholism has been shown to be both genetic and environmental, so if one parent is an alcoholic (or suffers any kind of addiction, actually), then the children should be taken away and the parents prohibited from having more. After all, the non-addicted spouse made the bad choice to marry someone with an addiction problem.

And, of course, statistics show that children of two parent homes do better than children of single parents, so after a divorce the children should be taken away and given to a stable, two parent home, and the single mother should be prohibited from having children unless she can demonstrate that they will be raised in a stable, two-parent home.

Once you start focusing on how things adversely impact society, there's no end to what you can achieve with your good intentions.

[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?

1. I'm a lifelong churchgoer and contribute heavily.
2. A tiny, tiny fraction of the money you donate to church goes anywhere other than benefitting yourself. I know this from the many church financial statements I have reviewed over the years. It averages about 5%. So basically 95% of what you give to church comes back to you.

But hey, whow me your church financials. Prove me wrong. I'd love to see how half of your money goes to the poor. I can't wait. Oh and in case you are Catholic, I was too. So I know the numbers including special collections, Catholic Charities, etc. added in.

[Anonymous]

Let me guess, OP, you're a childless man over 50. Expect a long, lonely seniority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think OP has a great idea, and we should extend it to remove children from situations that are likely to cause them to be burdens to society -

Statistics show that children from abusive households are likely to repeat the cycle of abuse, so if parents commit abuse they should lose their children, and, of course, if a woman marries a man who is an abuser, clearly she makes bad choices that have adverse impacts on her children so her children should be raised by people who can teach them to make better choices and she should be precluded from having more children.

Similarly, alcoholism has been shown to be both genetic and environmental, so if one parent is an alcoholic (or suffers any kind of addiction, actually), then the children should be taken away and the parents prohibited from having more. After all, the non-addicted spouse made the bad choice to marry someone with an addiction problem.

And, of course, statistics show that children of two parent homes do better than children of single parents, so after a divorce the children should be taken away and given to a stable, two parent home, and the single mother should be prohibited from having children unless she can demonstrate that they will be raised in a stable, two-parent home.

Once you start focusing on how things adversely impact society, there's no end to what you can achieve with your good intentions.

And where will all these children go? And how will that be funded? Good intentions mean nothing if you don't put your money where you mouth is.

[Anonymous]

Sure, welfare recipients should not be having more kids--but requiring it? NO

[Anonymous]

Regarding the question about actual benefits. My understanding is this:
Cash Assistance/ TANF - capped @ lifetime of 5 years (aggregate or in a row) there are exceptions for those in school, with a newborn, training for a job, etc. But not indefinite.
Food Stamps/EBT/SNAP/WIC
Subsidized Housing/Section 8
Medicaid

I think that's the standard delivery package a family can receive.

However, I did see a report on the number of people receiving disability benefits (mental and physical) which can be lifelong benefits, since disabilities don't necessarily ever resolve.

Not taking a side, just providing the information I have.