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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.