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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One only has to wander over to the Health & Medicine forum to see that birth control methods fail. What will you do when 5% of the people on welfare who you have forced on birth control end up pregnant anyway?

5% is a lot better than 100%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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????

You need to understand that there is a difference between libertarians and religious conservatives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I hope this is satire.

[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.

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

Yes, there are lots of people who get some kind of government funds who are paying taxes. For example, public housing residents often have jobs and pay a rent pro-rated to what they earn. Lots of people work at regular low-paid jobs but still have to rely on food stamps and Medicaid because they don't make enough to support their families even though they work full-time. And of course there are lots of working farmers who get crop subsidies and developers who get what amounts to a subsidy -- such as DC paying for the Nationals baseball stadium.

But it doesn't matter because a tax deduction for you means I, as another taxpayer, have to make it up somehow. So while you are not paying taxes on your employer-provided healthcare subsidy, I should have a right to know whether you are eating a healthy diet and whether you are drinking yourself into oblivion or smoking like a chimney. Because you're going to be a huge drag on the health system in your 50s if you don't take care of yourself -- which btw increases health insurance rates for us all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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????

You need to understand that there is a difference between libertarians and religious conservatives.

So which is the one that thinks the government can tell you to take contraceptives?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I hope this is satire.

Jonathan Swift had "A Modest Proposal"! Maybe that pp would like to adopt Swift's proposal!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The ignorance of that statement is just stunning.

[Anonymous]

Yes. I think welfare should be provided for the first two, but no more children will be provided for after that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Perhaps this has been YOUR experience - not mine. I go to a fairly small church - only a few hundred members. Any "building funds" come from dedicated funds above and beyond weekly offerings. Church "employees" are minimal. Pastor, part time secretary and part time music director. Salaries are actually quite small for all three. The home our pastor lives in was purchased using a down payment collected from the congregation in a "fund" - people who contributed will receive that money back with NO INTEREST when the house is sold and this money was not tax deductible. We do not pay for his car, or anything else - those funds are paid for by him with his salary. The worker bees at our church other than the 3 above are all VOLUNTEERS - yes, there are people out there that do for others without expecting anything in return. Our church gives quite a bit to support the local homeless shelter, the local food pantry, and other community services that rely on the goodness of others. And, we have several "work days" a year where we provide upgrades and upkeep to people in the neighborhood at NO EXPENSE TO THEM. Congregants volunteer and we get most of the materials donated - some we purchase with the weekly offerings. We also collect food for pantries, people donate new toys, clothing, and other things to sponsor families at Christmas, and we have a plethora of other "drives" for the needy throughout the year. So, those of us who are donating to our church are indeed helping others in need. I could go on and on about what my church does to help, and where our money goes, but I think you get the idea. I am sorry YOUR church experience is not the same. I would bet that more are like mine than like yours.
For all of you out there that think donations to churches are "poured back into the benefit of those giving into the system"- you either don't belong to a church, or your church experience is not the best. Not only do our weekly offerings go to help others OUTSIDE our church, but so do the numerous things we do throughout the year to help our community. We have a congregation that donates not only money to all of these things, but an incredible amount of time. This is what being a Christian is all about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Perhaps this has been YOUR experience - not mine. I go to a fairly small church - only a few hundred members. Any "building funds" come from dedicated funds above and beyond weekly offerings. Church "employees" are minimal. Pastor, part time secretary and part time music director. Salaries are actually quite small for all three. The home our pastor lives in was purchased using a down payment collected from the congregation in a "fund" - people who contributed will receive that money back with NO INTEREST when the house is sold and this money was not tax deductible. We do not pay for his car, or anything else - those funds are paid for by him with his salary. The worker bees at our church other than the 3 above are all VOLUNTEERS - yes, there are people out there that do for others without expecting anything in return. Our church gives quite a bit to support the local homeless shelter, the local food pantry, and other community services that rely on the goodness of others. And, we have several "work days" a year where we provide upgrades and upkeep to people in the neighborhood at NO EXPENSE TO THEM. Congregants volunteer and we get most of the materials donated - some we purchase with the weekly offerings. We also collect food for pantries, people donate new toys, clothing, and other things to sponsor families at Christmas, and we have a plethora of other "drives" for the needy throughout the year. So, those of us who are donating to our church are indeed helping others in need. I could go on and on about what my church does to help, and where our money goes, but I think you get the idea. I am sorry YOUR church experience is not the same. I would bet that more are like mine than like yours.
For all of you out there that think donations to churches are "poured back into the benefit of those giving into the system"- you either don't belong to a church, or your church experience is not the best. Not only do our weekly offerings go to help others OUTSIDE our church, but so do the numerous things we do throughout the year to help our community. We have a congregation that donates not only money to all of these things, but an incredible amount of time. This is what being a Christian is all about.

Please, provide a link to your church's annual report. I am guaranteeing you that 90% or more of your money is going to maintaining your church itself. The plethora of drives makes people think otherwise, but it's true. I have run through too many church financial reports to believe otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We're in luck! They have already stated that the Fed govt has the power to tax. See how that works?

[Anonymous]

^^ It is not online so I cannot do that. Not sure I would anyway. But, I can tell you that a majority goes to things OUTSIDE the church. BTW - I am NOT Catholic, if that makes a difference. Not sure if your experience is in the Catholic Church.
Oh, and I might add that while our weekly offerings do help pay for the power bills, any maintenance is done by the congregation, using no church funds. Plowing the parking lot, landscaping, clean up, etc. - all congregation. If we need a new roof, we start a dedicated fund. Our church building is also used by the community and other groups for a variety of things - AT NO COST TO THESE GROUPS. I know other churches sometimes charge. Ours does not.
So, when I make a weekly offering, I know that the majority of the money I give goes to help those in need and those in our community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ It is not online so I cannot do that. Not sure I would anyway. But, I can tell you that a majority goes to things OUTSIDE the church. BTW - I am NOT Catholic, if that makes a difference. Not sure if your experience is in the Catholic Church.
Oh, and I might add that while our weekly offerings do help pay for the power bills, any maintenance is done by the congregation, using no church funds. Plowing the parking lot, landscaping, clean up, etc. - all congregation. If we need a new roof, we start a dedicated fund. Our church building is also used by the community and other groups for a variety of things - AT NO COST TO THESE GROUPS. I know other churches sometimes charge. Ours does not.
So, when I make a weekly offering, I know that the majority of the money I give goes to help those in need and those in our community.

Please, been there done that still do that. Have you ever seem an annual report?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ It is not online so I cannot do that. Not sure I would anyway. But, I can tell you that a majority goes to things OUTSIDE the church. BTW - I am NOT Catholic, if that makes a difference. Not sure if your experience is in the Catholic Church.
Oh, and I might add that while our weekly offerings do help pay for the power bills, any maintenance is done by the congregation, using no church funds. Plowing the parking lot, landscaping, clean up, etc. - all congregation. If we need a new roof, we start a dedicated fund. Our church building is also used by the community and other groups for a variety of things - AT NO COST TO THESE GROUPS. I know other churches sometimes charge. Ours does not.
So, when I make a weekly offering, I know that the majority of the money I give goes to help those in need and those in our community.

Please, been there done that still do that. Have you ever seem an annual report?

Yes, for the last 30 years. I attend the voters meetings and review the reports. THAT is why I can say that I know this with confidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ It is not online so I cannot do that. Not sure I would anyway. But, I can tell you that a majority goes to things OUTSIDE the church. BTW - I am NOT Catholic, if that makes a difference. Not sure if your experience is in the Catholic Church.
Oh, and I might add that while our weekly offerings do help pay for the power bills, any maintenance is done by the congregation, using no church funds. Plowing the parking lot, landscaping, clean up, etc. - all congregation. If we need a new roof, we start a dedicated fund. Our church building is also used by the community and other groups for a variety of things - AT NO COST TO THESE GROUPS. I know other churches sometimes charge. Ours does not.
So, when I make a weekly offering, I know that the majority of the money I give goes to help those in need and those in our community.

Please, been there done that still do that. Have you ever seem an annual report?

Yes, for the last 30 years. I attend the voters meetings and review the reports. THAT is why I can say that I know this with confidence.

Well then what percentage of your budget goes to personnel, administration, facilities, and programs? After thirty years, you should know these numbers by heart.

Here is what the evangelical churches participating in the ECCU said. Note that total program expenses, including programs for their own church members, averages to only 14% of total spending. That means that AT LEAST 86 cents out of every dollar donated and claimed as "charitable" comes back to the congregation in the form of services they receive. Take out the youth group, the choir, religious education, and all of the other programs and you will get down below 5% actual charity to the poor. So if your church runs special collections every single month, maybe that number creeps up to 15%. Maybe.



This is the Economist's estimate of where US Catholic church spending goes. In fairness, some of that local church spending is going to be charitable but their financials at the local level look much like the evangelicals.



I could keep doing this all day. I say this as a lifelong Christian: far, far too much of church money goes to the benefit of the congregation. We provide a very modest amount of true support for the poor.