Please tell me how this sounds to you. To me, it's ridiculous
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| You are not supposed to have kids until you're ready, but "welfare moms" obviously don't live by that creed. I would be all for giving them extra money to parent their kids for success, which can be demonstrated by honor role status. Heck, they should get deductions if their kid commits crimes, becomes a parent before age 18, too. |
Anonymous
|
Despite an economy that is starting to turn around, the number of children living in poverty in Nevada is slightly above the national average, according to an annual analysis of children’s well-being released Wednesday.
The Nevada Kids Count report, sponsored by the Baltimore-based Annie E. Casey Foundation, looked at seven indicators of well-being, and the Silver State saw small gains made in almost all of those areas. Poverty was the one exception. In Nevada, 23.4 percent of children lived in poverty in 2012, a 1.2 percentage point increase from 2011. That is higher than the national average, which is 22.6 percent. The number of children in Nevada living in poverty has climbed 8.4 percentage points since 2007, when the Great Recession began. http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/education/kids-count-nevada-poverty-rate-children-exceeds-national-average Must be a lot of blacks in Nevada... |
Anonymous
Let's be honest, lots of young people don't. |
Anonymous
True, but why perpetuate that it's okay to keep having kids when you need the public to help you financially? |
FruminousBandersnatch
Member Offline
Member Offline
I knew the "slut shaming" would come pretty easy in a thread about welfare mothers. No matter how frequently or thoroughly the "welfare mom" stereotype gets debunked, it amazes me how persistent it is. I'm also fascinated by the intersection between the political groups who consistently believe the "welfare mom" stereotypes and oppose safety net spending (on the grounds that the recipients don't deserve it in some way or are responsible for their own circumstances) and the political groups who oppose sex ed, family planning and access to birth control (on the grounds that would lead to people having sex) and access to abortion (on the grounds that childrens' lives are precious). Those political beliefs create a situation where we have young people who are ignorant about sex, don't have access to resources that would educate them, and don't have access to birth control, and so they get pregnant. The getting pregnant is not a solo activity, but these threads always focus on the mother. The fathers don't have the education or access to birth control, either. So, we handicap them to start with, then we cut the budget for things that are proven to work like Head Start, and we shame them with the label of "welfare mothers" and "welfare dads" and they're in an economy where it's difficult for them to gets jobs. In the case of teens/college-age parents, they also face pressures and complications if they try to stay in school. Where we need to be spending for children is the early childhood interventions - the things that keep them from starting at an even more significant disadvantage. If we have teen parents, we need to be helping them stay in school, and even to get their Assoc/Bachelors degree, because that helps break the cycle of poverty. We should be rewarding the parents who stay in school and get good grades. |
Anonymous
Yes. But, it needs to be managed locally. There are too many layers of bureaucracy when it comes from the federal level. |
Anonymous
Most mothers on welfare do not have additional kids while they are on welfare. We did this discussion last year. |
Anonymous
It is managed at the local level. Funding may be provided by the Feds but programs are managed by counties and cities. |
Anonymous
| Wow! Has the entitlement culture gone this far off of its rocker? Now, people want the government to "get parents more involved with the human beings they've given birth to". Parents don't get involved because they have dignity, respect and obligation to their children- it's because the government provides money. How absolutely disgusting. It's shocking that things have gotten this bad that people could suggest this with a straight face. Tell the lady to go suggest this BS in China. She'd likely be hanged for such a ridiculous suggestion. This says two things- we've taken our citizenship so far for granted, that now we want the government to encourage appropriate parenting. And two- the Chinese and other Nations who would laugh at this are totally going to canabalize us. We've made it easy. |
Anonymous
I would need stats to prove that, but what about the fathers? There was some dude in the news last year who had 22 kids by at least 10 or 11 women. Couldn't support one. Taxpayers on the hook for $7500/month. |
Anonymous
Of course we want government to encourage appropriate parenting. Because that benefits society as a whole. |
FruminousBandersnatch
Member Offline
Member Offline
The government gives money to encourage/discourage behaviors all the time. The government encourages home ownership, so we have the interest deduction. The government wants to encourage people to have health insurance, so Virginia offers a tax credit. The government wants to discourage "sin" so we have taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, etc. This is nothing new. The point of the idea cited by the OP is a good one, although it might be late in the life of the child to have a benefit. There are lots of competitors for parental attention, and we want to encourage parents to pay attention to their kids because we believe that parental engagement is better for the kids and leads to a better society. So, we offer a reward for the behavior we want to see. Some parents will do this anyway, whether or not you give them an incentive. But, on the margin, the incentive will cause some parents to engage in the desired behavior. So the question is whether the societal benefit of the behavior is worth the cost in terms of the money provided. If so, society benefits. If not, then we should scrap the program. This is something that can be easily tested and analyzed. What aspects of Chinese and other countries' cultures and policies do you think we should emulate to avoid having them "cannibalize us"? |
Anonymous
The delusions never stop on here, do they? The amount of people on welfare are not decreasing. The so-called benefits to society for encouraging a welfare state are non-existent. The ghettos in my area are the same as they always have been. People are not doing better. So, obviously there is no benefit other than to keep poor people ignorant and poor so they never compete With the 1%. |
Anonymous
So what do you suggest? Eliminate all safety net programs? It's easy to say things aren't working. Given your obviously extensive knowledge, what should we be doing? |
Anonymous
|