No public policy will ever succeed based on "don't have intercourse."

If church charity were truly so great, we wouldn't have poverty and hunger.

And if a man fathers a child while receiving welfare benefits, are you going to take away his benefits, too? Or is it just about punishing those naughty women who have sex?

Instead of calling for punitive measures that hurt children, how about supporting programs that help people improve their lives and support themselves, like job training programs, or child-care subsidies so that parents can actually go to work? Why not speak up more loudly about getting free birth control to anyone who needs it? Improve sex education? And making sure that women have access to abortion facilities if they need one.

It's all about punishing those naughty sluts who tempt men into having licentious sex.

You can't teach anything but abstinence in sex ed (assuming you have it at all) because that might tempt women into having sex. So even if they get birth control, they don't know how to use it properly.

You can't make birth control easily available (or free) because then the naughty sluts will just go off having sex willy nilly at the taxpayers' expense.

You can't make abortion easier, because then the naughty sluts will just have abortions and damn the consequences for the poor, unborn child.

So you threaten to take away their benefits because that'll teach those naughty sluts not to have sex.

Let's not let the fact that the current welfare system doesn't actually reward people for having children, or the fact that benefits have been temporary since the Clinton administration get in the way of a good old fashioned slut shaming, because it's clear that those damn poor women just can't keep their legs shut and keep pushing out more kids, just for the (imaginary) benefits.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This has nothing to do with contraception. There is another alternative - don't have intercourse. If the government is providing assistance related to having kids, then they have the right to not cease providing assistance if the person has another child. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. Whether that means going on birth control or just not having intercourse, that is up to the recipient. I want to collect unemployment, the government is requiring that I actively look for a job while collecting. If you don't want to take birth control or quit having intercourse then don't ask for assistance. It is unfortunate, but sometimes the government has to step in to save people from themselves. That is why we have seat belt laws.

What if a woman is raped and gets pregnant? Do you take away her assistance?

And if a man fathers a child while receiving welfare benefits, are you going to take away his benefits, too? Or is it just about punishing those naughty women who have sex?

Instead of calling for punitive measures that hurt children, how about supporting programs that help people improve their lives and support themselves, like job training programs, or child-care subsidies so that parents can actually go to work? Why not speak up more loudly about getting free birth control to anyone who needs it? Improve sex education? And making sure that women have access to abortion facilities if they need one.

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.

I don't think it makes a difference to the denomination. My experiences has been with the evangelical and baptist churches. I am a DP by the way, and my experiences have been that tithes and donations cycle right back into the congregation.

No, but I would make all forms of contraception and abortions very easy to obtain.

No but don't give additional $ for new babies.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This has nothing to do with contraception. There is another alternative - don't have intercourse. If the government is providing assistance related to having kids, then they have the right to not cease providing assistance if the person has another child. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. Whether that means going on birth control or just not having intercourse, that is up to the recipient. I want to collect unemployment, the government is requiring that I actively look for a job while collecting. If you don't want to take birth control or quit having intercourse then don't ask for assistance. It is unfortunate, but sometimes the government has to step in to save people from themselves. That is why we have seat belt laws.

They tried that in Florida schools a few years ago. Got rid of sex ed and refused to talk about things like contraceptives. How did that work out? Teenage pregnancies and STDs skyrocketed. Complete disaster. So don't even THINK about going the "abstinence" route.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This has nothing to do with contraception. There is another alternative - don't have intercourse. If the government is providing assistance related to having kids, then they have the right to not cease providing assistance if the person has another child. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. Whether that means going on birth control or just not having intercourse, that is up to the recipient. I want to collect unemployment, the government is requiring that I actively look for a job while collecting. If you don't want to take birth control or quit having intercourse then don't ask for assistance. It is unfortunate, but sometimes the government has to step in to save people from themselves. That is why we have seat belt laws.

Growing up in my sheltered white upper middle class life I thought this too, until it was explained like this: the way to keep a man is through sex. Peruse the relationships section for evidence of this. Now imagine the sex-starved men either complaining about not getting laid or looking for tips on how to have an affair did not have a financial incentive to remain married to their wives (put simply, if you have no money, she can't take half), so they bolt when she says to use a condom, or no sex. Now she is a single mother. It's not really debatable that it is easier to raise children in a two-adult household, (for financial reasons, but also for the physical help), so she goes out and finds another man and has sex with him (probably unprotected). Cycle repeats.

This explanation made me realize it's more complicated, and that I was fortunate to have the resources (through education, hard work, financial planning, personal discipline, and a supportive family) so that I would never have to be in this situation.

For what it's worth, I don't believe having additional children that you can't support should be incentivized, but the practical application of discouraging additional babies is a bit too Orwellian for my comfort.

And to the PP who said there are plenty of people who would adopt the extra children: there are, provided those children are under two, healthy, (to a lesser extent) white, and legally able to be adopted permanently. Unfortunately, there is a waiting list of children who do not meet these criteria still waiting for homes.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This has nothing to do with contraception. There is another alternative - don't have intercourse. If the government is providing assistance related to having kids, then they have the right to not cease providing assistance if the person has another child. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. Whether that means going on birth control or just not having intercourse, that is up to the recipient. I want to collect unemployment, the government is requiring that I actively look for a job while collecting. If you don't want to take birth control or quit having intercourse then don't ask for assistance. It is unfortunate, but sometimes the government has to step in to save people from themselves. That is why we have seat belt laws.

+100 And, my spouse insists that the seat belt law was "the beginning of government intrusion."

^ No, what I am doing is defending the statement made by this poster:

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?

That while a lot of donations may go to the church in the form of offerings, there are a number of intangible, and tangible things that are donated by people at the church, many of these never showing up as donations. While your charts may show the average expenditures of churches, I am certain they don't include all these other goods and services. I know I give a ton to our breadbasket, and other drives, but do not deduct these because the record keeping is simply something I don't care to do. And, I am part of the choir too - actually - 3 of them at our church. And, thank you for providing a service to your community through your church service.

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.

This has nothing to do with contraception. There is another alternative - don't have intercourse. If the government is providing assistance related to having kids, then they have the right to not cease providing assistance if the person has another child. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. Whether that means going on birth control or just not having intercourse, that is up to the recipient. I want to collect unemployment, the government is requiring that I actively look for a job while collecting. If you don't want to take birth control or quit having intercourse then don't ask for assistance. It is unfortunate, but sometimes the government has to step in to save people from themselves. That is why we have seat belt laws.

Anonymous wrote:^ This may be true when averaged, but I know that over 50% of our collections go to serving others - mostly in the local community - some to missions abroad, but not much. What your charts do NOT show is the amount of GOODS collected by churches and donated to local charities...... Clothing, food, diapers, household goods, etc. I know my church is not alone in its efforts here. We have a breadbasket that gets filled weekly with nonperishable goods and is donated. We have diaper drives several times a year to stock the homeless shelter and the battered woman's shelter. We have the projects throughout the year to renovate, clean, and repair homes of the needy. And, we have many other events throughout the year. These things don't show up on your charts, but they are a vital part of the church's work. And, you cannot put a dollar amount on the programs we do for the senior centers and rehab centers - children's musicals, choir concerts, etc. - and these cost nothing - nobody is paid - but it provides a huge service to the groups we visit. And, my church is very small, but our congregation is incredibly generous with their time and their money. I can't imagine how much of these goods and services are provided by churches larger than mine.

I get tired of people disparaging the work of the churches in any community because without them, our nation would be in far worse shape.

Not only are you preaching to the choir, I actually am in the choir. I say this not to belittle churches but because i think churches need a wakeup call.

What you are doing is confusing the number of collections and activities with total dollars and value of services. A diaper drive is a nice thing but to do but those stacks of diapers are worth a few hundred dollars at best.

Satan loves socialism. The state replaces God.

^ This may be true when averaged, but I know that over 50% of our collections go to serving others - mostly in the local community - some to missions abroad, but not much. What your charts do NOT show is the amount of GOODS collected by churches and donated to local charities...... Clothing, food, diapers, household goods, etc. I know my church is not alone in its efforts here. We have a breadbasket that gets filled weekly with nonperishable goods and is donated. We have diaper drives several times a year to stock the homeless shelter and the battered woman's shelter. We have the projects throughout the year to renovate, clean, and repair homes of the needy. And, we have many other events throughout the year. These things don't show up on your charts, but they are a vital part of the church's work. And, you cannot put a dollar amount on the programs we do for the senior centers and rehab centers - children's musicals, choir concerts, etc. - and these cost nothing - nobody is paid - but it provides a huge service to the groups we visit. And, my church is very small, but our congregation is incredibly generous with their time and their money. I can't imagine how much of these goods and services are provided by churches larger than mine.

I get tired of people disparaging the work of the churches in any community because without them, our nation would be in far worse shape.