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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do agree that people shouldn't be able to pop out as many kids as they want and just expect the state to pick up the tab. It creates a self-perpetuating cycle in which generations never work - this is a big problem in my country in Europe.
I think you need a carrot and a stick approach - subsidize work, education and training, and phase out incentives like subsidized housing for those who don't work.

I don't think people understand what welfare is in this country, and thus continue to spew their own uneducated prejudices. Everything you described PP is already in place. The "T" in TANF stands for Temporary. Bill Clinton signed the Welfare Relief Act back in '94 or '96. TANF aka Welfare is temporary. Indiviudals can only be on TANF for 5-6 years in a lifetime. In order to receive assistance, individuals must either go to school, college, trade school, or seeking work. Many state governments also have welfare to work programs. There is no incentive to have additional children once you are already in the system because the check amount is capped. I do believe however that a family may receive a few extra dollars for the additional mouth, but that only amounts to a few extra bucks a week, think an extra 20-50 dollars. I honestly do not have deep knowledge about the housing incentives. But I do know that it is only an incentive for the very, very few that actually find a place that will accept the voucher. There are not nearly enough low income housing for the poor and working poor. If so, you would not see families sleeping in cars and shelters. Some received vouchers for low-income housing, and four or five years later still have been unable to find a rental that would accept the voucher. And please don't tell me about it is a violation of the Fair Housing Laws not to accept the vouchers. It is violated repeatedly every single day. How many of you would accept vouchers for your rental properties?

[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.

Go back and read 7:12. Are they not paying taxes, too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:!

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?

Not the PP you quoted, but it is common knowledge that the charities conservatives give to in abundance and then brag about it is to their favorite religious and political 501c. Those charities only benefit the giver, so conservatives are giving to enrich themselves two-fold. They are not helping the poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:.

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.

No they don't. They go to build bigger churches to entice larger congregations. HOw's that building fund going? It's used to support the choir, the children's fund (that is the children who attend the church). It's used to pay the utilities and all the trustees and workabees at the church. Don't forget the pastor and his wife's salary. It's used to pay for the pastor's house, car and upkeep. Etc., etc. Very little is used to help the homeless, but I will give you this. The church has to do a little something, something for those not affiliated with the church, otherwise they could not hold on to that non-profit satus. So they give the bare minimum as required to keep that status. Everything else is poured back into the benefit of those who are givinginto the system. Self-supporting cycle.

[Anonymous]

How about prohibiting the wealthy from divorcing and marrying trophy wives while they enjoy favorable capital gains tax treatment on carried interest? That would be a great way to promote family values!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

OP - here - nope - all of the above are trying to help themselves and contributing to society. Of course they should get help. I am talking about welfare abusers and parents who keep having children when they cant even afford food and shelter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nearly all of the money donated to churches goes to facilities, the ministers, support people, the schools and the diocese if there is one. It is not obvious because of all of the special collections and food drives, but in total about 95% of funds stay with the church.

If you don't believe me, pull your church's financial statement. If you have never done this, you will be surprised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Women can go on the pill and continue to receive benefits. If they have additional kids - no more benefits. It isn't that hard. Unfortunately, the man never has to suffer since he isn't capable of getting pregnant. The goal would be that the woman be smart enough to not get pregnant when she can't support the child. That isn't taking awya any rights. She can have as many kids as she wants - she just doesnt get any public benefits to support them. And the kids will suffer and continue this cycle regardless of benefits. Iwork in social services and it sickens me to see how families use their assistance.
And your point about it being difficult to make good choices - it shouldnt be hard to take a BCP or just say no to sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If the kids are still young, there is no shortage of people who will foster or adopt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

So have a baby every 5 years and be covered until menopause

[Anonymous]

If YOU SOLELY can afford to raise a child, yes. If not, no!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Women can go on the pill and continue to receive benefits. If they have additional kids - no more benefits. It isn't that hard. Unfortunately, the man never has to suffer since he isn't capable of getting pregnant. The goal would be that the woman be smart enough to not get pregnant when she can't support the child. That isn't taking awya any rights. She can have as many kids as she wants - she just doesnt get any public benefits to support them. And the kids will suffer and continue this cycle regardless of benefits. Iwork in social services and it sickens me to see how families use their assistance.
And your point about it being difficult to make good choices - it shouldnt be hard to take a BCP or just say no to sex.

Okay, so we cleared that up. You're saying let the kids starve. Good to know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Women can go on the pill and continue to receive benefits. If they have additional kids - no more benefits. It isn't that hard. Unfortunately, the man never has to suffer since he isn't capable of getting pregnant. The goal would be that the woman be smart enough to not get pregnant when she can't support the child. That isn't taking awya any rights. She can have as many kids as she wants - she just doesnt get any public benefits to support them. And the kids will suffer and continue this cycle regardless of benefits. Iwork in social services and it sickens me to see how families use their assistance.
And your point about it being difficult to make good choices - it shouldnt be hard to take a BCP or just say no to sex.

So you are saying the government has the right to force people to take contraceptives? After complaining up and down that the contraception mandate was a violation of your religious freedom????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If the Supreme Court wants to provide the money, let them figure out how to raise the funds.

[Anonymous]

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?

What research?