Originally posted by NewjakIsn't working while being on welfare literally abusing the system and collecting extra money for no reason?
Most families with children also working while being on welfare so it's not like they are just collecting money as far as a I know.But the ability to abuse the system does exist and I do know people that do so.
I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to work while being on welfare too since it defeats the purpose of the free money.
Originally posted by cdtm
How would you limit someone. How would we implement this "final solution" against unfit parents?With prison time? So the kid can be deprived of parents?
Or maybe forced steralization. Like we used to do here in the US, and had on the books until the 1970's.
And why stop there, we could have "fitter family" shows, and encourage "right" sort of people to procreate, while providing incentives for "undesirables" to get fixed.
This just all around depresses me to be honest. Just the fact that..I mean, if you can't afford to take care of a kid then you shouldn't have one. We actually shouldn't need what I call "common sense" laws. It should be common sense you don't bring a child into this world unless you can afford it.
The only excuse that flies is if you use a condom and it turns out to be faulty, since that isn't your fault. Otherwise why would you want to bring a child into this world if the child is going to be born into a shitty life?
But I have to ask..how was China able to enforce their own child limitation policy?
Originally posted by One Big MobThey are on welfare because even while working they are still below the poverty line and thus still qualify for welfare.
Isn't working while being on welfare literally abusing the system and collecting extra money for no reason?I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to work while being on welfare too since it defeats the purpose of the free money.
I've known families that are working full time jobs but still qualify for assistance because they make so little.
This holds especially true for single parent households with kids under 5.
Originally posted by SurturThere is some truth to this but accidents happen. People that have taken precautions can still have babies. And those people that end up in that situation can be punished for it for the rest of their lives without assistance. Which can lead to a child growing up in poverty and without help which greatly decreases that child's chances of being successful.
This just all around depresses me to be honest. Just the fact that..I mean, if you can't afford to take care of a kid then you shouldn't have one. We actually shouldn't need what I call "common sense" laws. It should be common sense you don't bring a child into this world unless you can afford it.
I also have a problem with this statement being that if you take it to its logical conclusion then essentially you're saying the poor should never have children.
Originally posted by Surtur
This just all around depresses me to be honest. Just the fact that..I mean, if you can't afford to take care of a kid then you shouldn't have one. We actually shouldn't need what I call "common sense" laws. It should be common sense you don't bring a child into this world unless you can afford it.The only excuse that flies is if you use a condom and it turns out to be faulty, since that isn't your fault. Otherwise why would you want to bring a child into this world if the child is going to be born into a shitty life?
But I have to ask..how was China able to enforce their own child limitation policy? They can't stop you from boning, so I'm guessing if you had more then the limit of kids you would be penalized somehow.
at one time the chinese were killing their children if they had a girl. they needed boys to help work.
this situation sucks. somebody has to lose, but i can personally attest that the system is abused greatly and data that says otherwise can and is skewed for political purposes
Originally posted by Newjak
There is some truth to this but accidents happen. People that have taken precautions can still have babies. And those people that end up in that situation can be punished for it for the rest of their lives without assistance. Which can lead to a child growing up in poverty and without help which greatly decreases that child's chances of being successful.I also have a problem with this statement being that if you take it to its logical conclusion then essentially you're saying the poor should never have children.
I'm saying you should never have children if you can't afford to take care of them. The rights of the child supersede the desire to have a baby even though you can't take care of it.
Plus I will counter with this: isn't it a sick person who will bring a child into this world knowing they can't afford to care for it? Just because that person has their mind set on having a child they can just ignore all the factors that make it a bad idea?
Originally posted by SurturIn Draconic fashion most of the time. There is a reason why there is a large gender disparity in China.
But I have to ask..how was China able to enforce their own child limitation policy?
Also those laws are apparently beginning to be eased up on and even on the verge of being gotten away with entirely.
Originally posted by Newjak
In Draconic fashion most of the time. There is a reason why there is a large gender disparity in China.Also those laws are apparently beginning to be eased up on and even on the verge of being gotten away with entirely.
So let me ask this, let us say you have a woman on Welfare named Mary. After a year of being on welfare Mary gets pregnant. What should happen when it comes to her welfare? Should it be increased? Stay the same?
Originally posted by Raisen
http://thefga.org/press/for-immediate-release-5-crazy-examples-of-welfare-fraud-and-the-3-step-solution-for-states-to-stop-the-scam/
This makes me sick, especially that Pennsylvania paid out welfare to people who had won millions in the lottery.
Or the Chicago man who used all those link cards to make money. How the hell do you get multiple link cards?
Originally posted by Surtur
So let me ask this, let us say you have a woman on Welfare named Mary. After a year of being on welfare Mary gets pregnant. What should happen when it comes to her welfare? Should it be increased? Stay the same?
I think if she has a child to take care of and can't find a job, her welfare should be adjusted to be able to support herself and the child.
Originally posted by SurturAnd in the case of accidental pregnancies which is what I think account for most late teen early 20s pregnancies?
I'm saying you should never have children if you can't afford to take care of them. The rights of the child supersede the desire to have a baby even though you can't take care of it.Plus I will counter with this: isn't it a sick person who will bring a child into this world knowing they can't afford to care for it? Just because that person has their mind set on having a child they can just ignore all the factors that make it a bad idea?
You add in the religious stigma around abortions for many in this country and you have a recipe for a lot of unwanted children before the parents are ready to take care of them.
I would also point out in a country where people can work full time jobs but still fall below the poverty line that somehow forcing them to not be able to have children seems kind of shitty.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I think if she has a child to take care off and can't find a job, her welfare should be adjusted to be able to support herself and the child.
Why should she be given more money because she was irresponsible and got pregnant knowing she couldn't afford it? Seems like that is rewarding people for stupid behavior.
But okay, let us take it a step further. After the first kid she gets pregnant again and has another kid. Does she deserve a further increase?
Originally posted by Surtur
This makes me sick, especially that Pennsylvania paid out welfare to people who had won millions in the lottery.Or the Chicago man who used all those link cards to make money. How the hell do you get multiple link cards?
i'm wondering how many of these supporters have been on welfare and how many people do they know have been. the abuse is sick. there are stats all over the place with varying results. don't believe the numbers. you need to live this to know
Originally posted by Surtur
Why should she be given more money because she was irresponsible and got pregnant knowing she couldn't afford it? Seems like that is rewarding people for stupid behavior.But okay, let us take it a step further. After the first kid she gets pregnant again and has another kid. Does she deserve a further increase?
The money is not for her, but for the child that needs support.
Originally posted by Newjak
And in the case of accidental pregnancies which is what I think account for most late teen early 20s pregnancies?You add in the religious stigma around abortions for many in this country and you have a recipe for a lot of unwanted children before the parents are ready to take care of them.
I would also point out in a country where people can work full time jobs but still fall below the poverty line that somehow forcing them to not be able to have children seems kind of shitty.
pretty much only hispanics have the religious stigma and they only account for 15 percent. you are reaching newjak. you are trying too hard to find excuses
Originally posted by Surtur
So then where is the cut off line? How many children can she have before she stops getting increases? 2? 4?
If she is a good mother for the children and doesn't neglect or abuse them she should be able to get as many children as she wants, and the children should get government support if they need it, imo.