Question

[Noomi]

You don't want to pay for children on welfare.
You don't want abortion to be legal.
You don't want to subsidize access to birth control.

What do you think should be done to prevent or reduce unplanned pregnancies?

proper upbringing in a 2 parent home.and not rewarding single mothers for having multiple kids ....basically get the leftist ideology out of our homes !!

Single mothers wouldn't be 'rewarded' with having multiple kids if you would allow them to have abortions.

 

[FA_Q2]

I think she's made some valid points in this thread. If people aren't going to be responsible for themselves, and we're going to be on the hook either way, it does make sense to make the most financially responsible choice. And obviously providing birth control is cheaper than providing a lifetime of welfare multiplied by future generations that haven't been born b/c we gave some chick birth control.

The counter to that is that you are making the problem grater by taking the responsibility of peoples actions away in the first place. The argument that you are making here relies on the premise that the state and society is guaranteed to be paying for these instances in the first place.

IMHO, not taking that responsibility in the first place is the 'financially should' decision though that is not the only consideration here. When removing the responsibility of your actions you are simply ensuring that MORE irresponsible behavior is going to take place.

The problem with doing it your way is, there are children who are helped by welfare who would otherwise suffer through no fault of their own because our system prefers to financially assist parents rather than remove kids for neglect whenever possible.

My way?

I did not actually present a solution. I was pointing out the fatal flaw in the premise of the post that I quoted. The entire argument that was made relied on the premise that the actions of government did NOT influence behavior. That is flat out incorrect. By supporting those that make poor decisions, you create more poor decisions.

I agree with some of the solutions presented in this thread like removing money from the equation altogether like actually doling out food instead of food stamps. I like the way that WIC is run. You get a check but instead of X dollars on your check there is 1lb cheese, 1 box of cereal ect. You can ONLY purchase the foods that are on that list.

Essentially, I believe in welfare being a helping hand for those that need it but NOT something that is meant to make your life comfortable while using it. People should get help that is needed and then get off of it. That would happen if welfare programs were not structured in a way that makes it preferable to actually working.

 

[Dreamy]

You don't want to pay for children on welfare.
You don't want abortion to be legal.
You don't want to subsidize access to birth control.

What do you think should be done to prevent or reduce unplanned pregnancies?

proper upbringing in a 2 parent home.and not rewarding single mothers for having multiple kids ....basically get the leftist ideology out of our homes !!

Single mothers wouldn't be 'rewarded' with having multiple kids if you would allow them to have abortions.

Allowed? They are "allowed" Noomi. Abortion is legal in this country and has been since 1973. The rest of us/the government paying for those abortions is what many of us take issue.

I don't give a flying leap how many babies other women make, keep or abort as long as they pay out of their own pocket for their children and their choice to abort. Why does that simply concept seem to escape some of the pro-choicers?

 

[Dreamy]

You don't want to pay for children on welfare.
You don't want abortion to be legal.
You don't want to subsidize access to birth control.

What do you think should be done to prevent or reduce unplanned pregnancies?

proper upbringing in a 2 parent home.and not rewarding single mothers for having multiple kids ....basically get the leftist ideology out of our homes !!

Good God, does EVERYTHING have to be left and right?

There are plenty of liberals who are not , never have been, and never will be on welfare, and there are plenty of conservatives who are lifers.

The lefty/righty thinking is destroying this country in so many ways. Common sense and sensible independent thinking is waning because too many people want to stick to their partisan political ideology above all else.

The trouble with most people who vote in this country is they align we these awful people and elect them and those awful people are on both sides of the aisle.

 

[WillowTree]

You don't want to pay for children on welfare.
You don't want abortion to be legal.
You don't want to subsidize access to birth control.

What do you think should be done to prevent or reduce unplanned pregnancies?

sand and suture.

 

[JustTheFacts]

The counter to that is that you are making the problem grater by taking the responsibility of peoples actions away in the first place. The argument that you are making here relies on the premise that the state and society is guaranteed to be paying for these instances in the first place.

IMHO, not taking that responsibility in the first place is the 'financially should' decision though that is not the only consideration here. When removing the responsibility of your actions you are simply ensuring that MORE irresponsible behavior is going to take place.

The problem with doing it your way is, there are children who are helped by welfare who would otherwise suffer through no fault of their own because our system prefers to financially assist parents rather than remove kids for neglect whenever possible.

My way?

I did not actually present a solution. I was pointing out the fatal flaw in the premise of the post that I quoted. The entire argument that was made relied on the premise that the actions of government did NOT influence behavior. That is flat out incorrect. By supporting those that make poor decisions, you create more poor decisions.

I agree with some of the solutions presented in this thread like removing money from the equation altogether like actually doling out food instead of food stamps. I like the way that WIC is run. You get a check but instead of X dollars on your check there is 1lb cheese, 1 box of cereal ect. You can ONLY purchase the foods that are on that list.

Essentially, I believe in welfare being a helping hand for those that need it but NOT something that is meant to make your life comfortable while using it. People should get help that is needed and then get off of it. That would happen if welfare programs were not structured in a way that makes it preferable to actually working.

Apologies. I simply meant your way as in what you posted. I didnt mean to imply anything more than that.

 

[JustTheFacts]

The counter to that is that you are making the problem grater by taking the responsibility of peoples actions away in the first place. The argument that you are making here relies on the premise that the state and society is guaranteed to be paying for these instances in the first place.

IMHO, not taking that responsibility in the first place is the 'financially should' decision though that is not the only consideration here. When removing the responsibility of your actions you are simply ensuring that MORE irresponsible behavior is going to take place.

The problem with doing it your way is, there are children who are helped by welfare who would otherwise suffer through no fault of their own because our system prefers to financially assist parents rather than remove kids for neglect whenever possible.

My way?

I did not actually present a solution. I was pointing out the fatal flaw in the premise of the post that I quoted. The entire argument that was made relied on the premise that the actions of government did NOT influence behavior. That is flat out incorrect. By supporting those that make poor decisions, you create more poor decisions.

I agree with some of the solutions presented in this thread like removing money from the equation altogether like actually doling out food instead of food stamps. I like the way that WIC is run. You get a check but instead of X dollars on your check there is 1lb cheese, 1 box of cereal ect. You can ONLY purchase the foods that are on that list.

Essentially, I believe in welfare being a helping hand for those that need it but NOT something that is meant to make your life comfortable while using it. People should get help that is needed and then get off of it. That would happen if welfare programs were not structured in a way that makes it preferable to actually working.

How would you feel about my proposed workfare system? You need help, whichever county you work in hires you at minimum wage tax free to do whatever around the county. Instead of food stamps etc allbmonies are pooled together and you are paid cash and a life coach will help you learn how to get back on and stay on your feet.

If you dont want to participate. No problem. And no welfare.

 

[catzmeow]

So if somebody else doesn't pay for it you cant control your own reproductive system ?

You aren't able to read through the thread and find the answers for yourself? I see no reason to restate answers to the same question multiple times.

 

[FA_Q2]

So if somebody else doesn't pay for it you cant control your own reproductive system ?

You aren't able to read through the thread and find the answers for yourself? I see no reason to restate answers to the same question multiple times.

I like the idea IF, and only if, such a system were not guaranteed. IOW, if you were doing a piss poor job at whatever the county needed you to do or could not show up to work on time you would be fired.

I have little faith that a government program could do that effectively though. Having worked in the public sector, losing your job is as simple as going on a killing spree. Except that might not get you fired as well.

Truth be told though, it would still be better than the system we have at the moment. Add to that some work skills training and we would be in a much better position.

 

[JustTheFacts]

So if somebody else doesn't pay for it you cant control your own reproductive system ?

You aren't able to read through the thread and find the answers for yourself? I see no reason to restate answers to the same question multiple times.

I like the idea IF, and only if, such a system were not guaranteed. IOW, if you were doing a piss poor job at whatever the county needed you to do or could not show up to work on time you would be fired.

I have little faith that a government program could do that effectively though. Having worked in the public sector, losing your job is as simple as going on a killing spree. Except that might not get you fired as well.

Truth be told though, it would still be better than the system we have at the moment. Add to that some work skills training and we would be in a much better position.

Absolutely agree , I mean we're talking about sweeping floors, picking up litter, painting walls, that sort of thing. If you're not willing to actually WORK at that kind of job, piss off we aren't willing to help you.