Question

[catzmeow]

And yes your plan sounds wonderful, in theory. In reality, why are we supporting these folks anyway? I am all for , 100% helping those in need. I am 100% against helping those who make bad choices knowing full well that Uncle Sam will bail them out.

The ONLY persons I feel sorry for in that situation is the children who did nothing to deserve being born to such shitty parents.

I suspect that that is your concern as well. So , if we REALLY wanted to help those kids we wouldn't abort them, we would get them out of the shitty environment they were born into and into a more stable , more mature home.

Does that mean taking children away from unfit pieces of shit? Yep, sure does. Plenty of good folk out there who can't have kids of their own, or who would love to help a child in need.

And guess what; I suspect if the government quit making it so easy to get so much free shit , that people would start acting more responsibly. That's just common sense. Take away a tight rope walker's safety net and he's a lot more careful when he walks that rope.

These people we are talking about are morons. Sooner or later you have to let them fail so that they learn to succeed.

And just in case you were thinking it , I am 100% against corporate welfare as well. Hell, I'm so far against corporate welfare that I think the minimum wage should be raised to $20 an hour and companies should be told that paying wages so low that they have employees who qualify for welfare while a few get rich is no longer acceptable.

I work with the child welfare system, it is considerably more expensive, time consuming, and detrimental to children's welfare to put them through that system than it is to prevent their birth.

You share the same goals with me, I'm just more familiar with the longterm effects on kids of being in the child protection system, and the limitations of those systems around the U.S.

Why don't we remove children before they are abused or neglected by a parent? Because to do so would be a violation of our constitution. In our system, people are innocent of wrongdoing until they are proven guilty. In order to remove a child from a parent, the parent must be found guilty of abuse/neglect of the child. The finding of guilt requires exposing children to abuse/neglect, often unreported for years, before removing them from the home of a parent guilty of child abuse.

You can't just take people's children away because they're poor and you don't approve of their choices.

So, as stated, the best option is to prevent the birth (not talking about abortion here) of children who are unwanted or can't be properly cared for.

I don't like using my tax dollars to give away free stuff, but I've worked with these kids for 21 years now. We would be better off helping women prevent pregnancies they don't want.

And no, I don't think it's a good idea to let irresponsible people fail when infants are involved. That's part of the reason that our infanticide rate (not talking abortion, again) is so high in this country.

see, the people you're talking about, that you wish to learn from their mistakes...their mistake, quite often, is abusing, neglecting or even killing their child. The risk of harm to the innocent child outweighs the possible lessons that might be learned by the parent, in my book.

 

[JustTheFacts]

And yes your plan sounds wonderful, in theory. In reality, why are we supporting these folks anyway? I am all for , 100% helping those in need. I am 100% against helping those who make bad choices knowing full well that Uncle Sam will bail them out.

The ONLY persons I feel sorry for in that situation is the children who did nothing to deserve being born to such shitty parents.

I suspect that that is your concern as well. So , if we REALLY wanted to help those kids we wouldn't abort them, we would get them out of the shitty environment they were born into and into a more stable , more mature home.

Does that mean taking children away from unfit pieces of shit? Yep, sure does. Plenty of good folk out there who can't have kids of their own, or who would love to help a child in need.

And guess what; I suspect if the government quit making it so easy to get so much free shit , that people would start acting more responsibly. That's just common sense. Take away a tight rope walker's safety net and he's a lot more careful when he walks that rope.

These people we are talking about are morons. Sooner or later you have to let them fail so that they learn to succeed.

And just in case you were thinking it , I am 100% against corporate welfare as well. Hell, I'm so far against corporate welfare that I think the minimum wage should be raised to $20 an hour and companies should be told that paying wages so low that they have employees who qualify for welfare while a few get rich is no longer acceptable.

I work with the child welfare system, it is considerably more expensive, time consuming, and detrimental to children's welfare to put them through that system than it is to prevent their birth.

You share the same goals with me, I'm just more familiar with the longterm effects on kids of being in the child protection system, and the limitations of those systems around the U.S.

Why don't we remove children before they are abused or neglected by a parent? Because to do so would be a violation of our constitution. In our system, people are innocent of wrongdoing until they are proven guilty. In order to remove a child from a parent, the parent must be found guilty of abuse/neglect of the child. The finding of guilt requires exposing children to abuse/neglect, often unreported for years, before removing them from the home of a parent guilty of child abuse.

You can't just take people's children away because they're poor and you don't approve of their choices.

So, as stated, the best option is to prevent the birth (not talking about abortion here) of children who are unwanted or can't be properly cared for.

I don't like using my tax dollars to give away free stuff, but I've worked with these kids for 21 years now. We would be better off helping women prevent pregnancies they don't want.

And no, I don't think it's a good idea to let irresponsible people fail when infants are involved. That's part of the reason that our infanticide rate (not talking abortion, again) is so high in this country.

see, the people you're talking about, that you wish to learn from their mistakes...their mistake, quite often, is abusing, neglecting or even killing their child. The risk of harm to the innocent child outweighs the possible lessons that might be learned by the parent, in my book.

When I said let them fail, I certainly didn't mean let them fail by abusing children. I was talking about the larger context of welfare.

I 100% believe that if our welfare system held people more accountable for how they spent THEIR money before they got any of ours that they would self regulate and our welfare bill would go down.

No , I don't believe they would change their spending habits or make better decisions. Rather I believe if we told these people that a condition of getting welfare is that they will be working with a life coach who would help them learn to make better decisions that those people would choose not to get involved with welfare to begin with. Thus lowering our bill.

My preferred system in fact would be one that just made a cash payment once a month. No food stamps, no TIF, none of that. Just if you qualify, you get a monthly deposit in the amount that you qualify for.

The catch is you are also assigned a life coach who you must meet with monthly who will go over your budget with you and who's "advice" isn't really advice . And if you don't like that, that's fine then don't sign up for welfare.

As it stands though, there is not a single bit of accountability. Not one.

People on welfare should not have big screen tvs, they should not have satelite tv, I'm okay with them having internet and a cell phone, but not smart phones, they should not have xboxes or playstations, they should not be buying liquor or lottery tickets, they should not have a car payment, they should not do a lot of things that we both know they do.

The whole system sickens people until they are to the point where they don't even care about helping people who genuinely need the help.

 

[catzmeow]

If it prevented people from becoming entangled in the welfare system, would you support government funding for birth control for women and girls in high poverty areas?

 

[JustTheFacts]

If it prevented people from becoming entangled in the welfare system, would you support government funding for birth control for women and girls in high poverty areas?

Already answered, albeit in another thread, I'm fine with publicly funded birth control. Obviously it isn't ideal, but as you have pointed out in this thread, there is a solid case to be made that is the less expensive of two evils.

But , my question to you is this. What about the women who CHOOSE to have kids knowing it helps them get more out of the welfare system. They don't care about those kids. They care about that government check.

And also, what of men who participate in the scam by knowingly impregnating these women when they know neither of them can support them?

I know some believe that telling people on welfare that they can't have kids while on welfare and remain on the system is infringing on those peoples' rights, but that's so much bunk.

 

[catzmeow]

But , my question to you is this. What about the women who CHOOSE to have kids knowing it helps them get more out of the welfare system. They don't care about those kids. They care about that government check.

And also, what of men who participate in the scam by knowingly impregnating these women when they know neither of them can support them?

I know some believe that telling people on welfare that they can't have kids while on welfare and remain on the system is infringing on those peoples' rights, but that's so much bunk.

I hate the welfare system. I understand the need to take care of children who were born into these scenarios, but welfare does nothing to break the cycle of dependence.

In my opinion, welfare should be extensively reformed. Women or men who obtain assistance should be required to be educationally/vocationally assessed for longterm employability. We may need a short term program of assistance for people who are employable but have experienced some difficulty (like a serious illness) that has caused them major financial distress. However, people who are unemployable at present should be required to participate in educational/training program in fields with documented job growth. They should be required to successfully participate in these programs (i.e., 90% attendance, passing grade), and should show that they are making efforts to obtain meaningful employment. They should also be required to successfully participate in classes on budgeting/finance, nutrition, home maintenance, and parenting.

Bear in mind that some of the people on welfare are functionally illiterate and read at a 3rd or 4th grade level. I'd advise that rather than giving them a check, we provide them with a set of opporunities such as enrolling in residential training programs like Job Corps (which have a higher track record of helping participants find employment than does the current welfare system).

Here's a good example of the type of program I'm talking about:

Flint Hills Job Corps: Benefits

There should not be a cash disbursement to the parents, but rather, the money should flow to service providers, residential programs, low income housing programs (with a built-in and required educational component), employment training programs, and food programs.

That's how welfare would work, if I were the dictator.

 

[FA_Q2]

...you need insurance for birth control.

Really? You sure about that? Pretty sure you can buy such things without going through an insurance company.

A girl without insurance can go to a walk-in type clinic (doc in a box) and may be able to get a prescription for birth control pills, but she's going to have to pay for the office visit and a pelvic exam before they prescribe it. And, if she doesn't have insurance, that's going to run her upwards of $250 at most of those places. That may not be a lot for some of us, but for a part time walmart worker who earns $9 an hour and takes home $700, it's a lot. She's more likely to just risk it.

The problem here is that you are advocating a governmental solution of providing free/reduced cost birth control because of governmental regulations making it to damn expensive in the first place. In that case, the solution is not that there needs to be enforced public funding of birth control nor grater requirements on providing the same but rather a simpler and cheaper way to gain access in the first place. Something like say, you don't actually need a full doc in a box to get it in the first place...

Failure rate for condoms? Sure, if you're retarded.

So, you support giving out free condoms to poor people?

If you want to talk about the government monopoly on affordable education, start a new thread.

If your children attend school, the reason that their education is affordable is because all of the property owners in your area are subsidizing it. So, in other words, your neighbors are taking responsibility to educate your children.

Well, yes and no. The reason that a good education is out of reach of the standard citizen is because of the asinine public education system. While the super poor have better access, the vast majority of the population actually has worse access.

As eflat was saying though, this is for another thread entirely. The fact is that it does not really relate to this topic because many (and I believe that eflat is one of them as I am) would reject the premise that you have made in the first place.

 

[JustTheFacts]

But , my question to you is this. What about the women who CHOOSE to have kids knowing it helps them get more out of the welfare system. They don't care about those kids. They care about that government check.

And also, what of men who participate in the scam by knowingly impregnating these women when they know neither of them can support them?

I know some believe that telling people on welfare that they can't have kids while on welfare and remain on the system is infringing on those peoples' rights, but that's so much bunk.

I hate the welfare system. I understand the need to take care of children who were born into these scenarios, but welfare does nothing to break the cycle of dependence.

In my opinion, welfare should be extensively reformed. Women or men who obtain assistance should be required to be educationally/vocationally assessed for longterm employability. We may need a short term program of assistance for people who are employable but have experienced some difficulty (like a serious illness) that has caused them major financial distress. However, people who are unemployable at present should be required to participate in educational/training program in fields with documented job growth. They should be required to successfully participate in these programs (i.e., 90% attendance, passing grade), and should show that they are making efforts to obtain meaningful employment. They should also be required to successfully participate in classes on budgeting/finance, nutrition, home maintenance, and parenting.

Bear in mind that some of the people on welfare are functionally illiterate and read at a 3rd or 4th grade level. I'd advise that rather than giving them a check, we provide them with a set of opporunities such as enrolling in residential training programs like Job Corps (which have a higher track record of helping participants find employment than does the current welfare system).

Here's a good example of the type of program I'm talking about:

Flint Hills Job Corps: Benefits

There should not be a cash disbursement to the parents, but rather, the money should flow to service providers, residential programs, low income housing programs (with a built-in and required educational component), employment training programs, and food programs.

That's how welfare would work, if I were the dictator.

Once again, we agree. Education and work should be mandatory. Every community in the US needs some clean up. Whether that is picking up trash, sweeping sidewalks, painting government buildings , babysitting for others while they do so, whatever.

No free rides should mean just that, you need help fine, you can go to work for your local community in exchange for the minimum wage (and I would not take taxes out of this) as the welfare you receive.

How fair is that? Everyone wins. People in need get help, communities get extra workers, unemployment rates go down, and everyone wins.

Another reason I like cash payments along with a life coach is it helps teach those who are receiving it how to manage their money correctly.

Telling someone "here is your food stamps" and sending them on their way doesn't help them in the long run.

Also, I don't feel like there is any reason to embarrass people who are on welfare so just deposit money into their accounts in exchange for work and let them keep some dignity.

Those who don't deserve said dignity would quickly wash out and not get shit anyway.

 

[Koios]

But , my question to you is this. What about the women who CHOOSE to have kids knowing it helps them get more out of the welfare system. They don't care about those kids. They care about that government check.

And also, what of men who participate in the scam by knowingly impregnating these women when they know neither of them can support them?

I know some believe that telling people on welfare that they can't have kids while on welfare and remain on the system is infringing on those peoples' rights, but that's so much bunk.

I hate the welfare system. I understand the need to take care of children who were born into these scenarios, but welfare does nothing to break the cycle of dependence.

In my opinion, welfare should be extensively reformed. Women or men who obtain assistance should be required to be educationally/vocationally assessed for longterm employability. We may need a short term program of assistance for people who are employable but have experienced some difficulty (like a serious illness) that has caused them major financial distress. However, people who are unemployable at present should be required to participate in educational/training program in fields with documented job growth. They should be required to successfully participate in these programs (i.e., 90% attendance, passing grade), and should show that they are making efforts to obtain meaningful employment. They should also be required to successfully participate in classes on budgeting/finance, nutrition, home maintenance, and parenting.

Bear in mind that some of the people on welfare are functionally illiterate and read at a 3rd or 4th grade level. I'd advise that rather than giving them a check, we provide them with a set of opporunities such as enrolling in residential training programs like Job Corps (which have a higher track record of helping participants find employment than does the current welfare system).

Here's a good example of the type of program I'm talking about:

Flint Hills Job Corps: Benefits

There should not be a cash disbursement to the parents, but rather, the money should flow to service providers, residential programs, low income housing programs (with a built-in and required educational component), employment training programs, and food programs.

That's how welfare would work, if I were the dictator.

It's not meant to. It just serves a need: hunger and abject poverty, in hopes of mitigating the terrible conseqeunces of being poor.

As for breaking the cycle, we do that by creating opportunity, or should. But we do a poor job of that, and in fact, at great public cost, worsen the cycle, and descimate entire communities, principally poorer black communities, via an unjust criminal "justice" system that targets disproportionately those communities. And we make non violent offenders (drugs) unemployable, which tears apart families and creates a cycle of crime, since they have few other options upon release from prision.

 

[JustTheFacts]

But , my question to you is this. What about the women who CHOOSE to have kids knowing it helps them get more out of the welfare system. They don't care about those kids. They care about that government check.

And also, what of men who participate in the scam by knowingly impregnating these women when they know neither of them can support them?

I know some believe that telling people on welfare that they can't have kids while on welfare and remain on the system is infringing on those peoples' rights, but that's so much bunk.

I hate the welfare system. I understand the need to take care of children who were born into these scenarios, but welfare does nothing to break the cycle of dependence.

In my opinion, welfare should be extensively reformed. Women or men who obtain assistance should be required to be educationally/vocationally assessed for longterm employability. We may need a short term program of assistance for people who are employable but have experienced some difficulty (like a serious illness) that has caused them major financial distress. However, people who are unemployable at present should be required to participate in educational/training program in fields with documented job growth. They should be required to successfully participate in these programs (i.e., 90% attendance, passing grade), and should show that they are making efforts to obtain meaningful employment. They should also be required to successfully participate in classes on budgeting/finance, nutrition, home maintenance, and parenting.

Bear in mind that some of the people on welfare are functionally illiterate and read at a 3rd or 4th grade level. I'd advise that rather than giving them a check, we provide them with a set of opporunities such as enrolling in residential training programs like Job Corps (which have a higher track record of helping participants find employment than does the current welfare system).

Here's a good example of the type of program I'm talking about:

Flint Hills Job Corps: Benefits

There should not be a cash disbursement to the parents, but rather, the money should flow to service providers, residential programs, low income housing programs (with a built-in and required educational component), employment training programs, and food programs.

That's how welfare would work, if I were the dictator.

It's not meant to. It just serves a need: hunger and abject poverty, in hopes of mitigating the terrible conseqeunces of being poor.

As for breaking the cycle, we do that by creating opportunity, or should. But we do a poor job of that, and in fact, at great public cost, worsen the cycle, and descimate entire communities, principally poorer black communities, via an unjust criminal "justice" system that targets disproportionately those communities. And we make non violent offenders (drugs) unemployable, which tears apart families and creates a cycle of crime, since they have few other options upon release from prision.

I hardly think we can blame so called poverty on making drugs illegal.

We're talking about people who are qualified to work at McDonalds, or Home Depot, or something along those lines. And I'm talking about hourly employees.

And those levels of jobs aren't turning down applicants based on a minor drug arrest.

Also, when it comes to drugs, even if they are all legalized there will be nothing stopping companies from refusing to employ those who fail drug tests. I mean sure some believe that is not the case, but that ignores a reality.

 

[Koios]

I hate the welfare system. I understand the need to take care of children who were born into these scenarios, but welfare does nothing to break the cycle of dependence.

In my opinion, welfare should be extensively reformed. Women or men who obtain assistance should be required to be educationally/vocationally assessed for longterm employability. We may need a short term program of assistance for people who are employable but have experienced some difficulty (like a serious illness) that has caused them major financial distress. However, people who are unemployable at present should be required to participate in educational/training program in fields with documented job growth. They should be required to successfully participate in these programs (i.e., 90% attendance, passing grade), and should show that they are making efforts to obtain meaningful employment. They should also be required to successfully participate in classes on budgeting/finance, nutrition, home maintenance, and parenting.

Bear in mind that some of the people on welfare are functionally illiterate and read at a 3rd or 4th grade level. I'd advise that rather than giving them a check, we provide them with a set of opporunities such as enrolling in residential training programs like Job Corps (which have a higher track record of helping participants find employment than does the current welfare system).

Here's a good example of the type of program I'm talking about:

Flint Hills Job Corps: Benefits

There should not be a cash disbursement to the parents, but rather, the money should flow to service providers, residential programs, low income housing programs (with a built-in and required educational component), employment training programs, and food programs.

That's how welfare would work, if I were the dictator.

It's not meant to. It just serves a need: hunger and abject poverty, in hopes of mitigating the terrible conseqeunces of being poor.

As for breaking the cycle, we do that by creating opportunity, or should. But we do a poor job of that, and in fact, at great public cost, worsen the cycle, and descimate entire communities, principally poorer black communities, via an unjust criminal "justice" system that targets disproportionately those communities. And we make non violent offenders (drugs) unemployable, which tears apart families and creates a cycle of crime, since they have few other options upon release from prision.

I hardly think we can blame so called poverty on making drugs illegal.

We're talking about people who are qualified to work at McDonalds, or Home Depot, or something along those lines. And I'm talking about hourly employees.

And those levels of jobs aren't turning down applicants based on a minor drug arrest.

Also, when it comes to drugs, even if they are all legalized there will be nothing stopping companies from refusing to employ those who fail drug tests. I mean sure some believe that is not the case, but that ignores a reality.

We agree (shit; I'm getting misty)

But note: I'm not saying than nor even alluding to it. I'm saying that poverty and drug activity go together, and that how we treat it in our fucked up criminal justice system makes matter worse and adds to the cycle of poverty requiring assitance.

 

[OODA_Loop]

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?

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

 

[JustTheFacts]

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?

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

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.

 

[OODA_Loop]

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?

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

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.

Yes no need to make people accountable when you can just support them.

Might as well just pay criminals upfront, we pay for it later.

 

[JustTheFacts]

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

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.

Yes no need to make people accountable when you can just support them.

Might as well just pay criminals upfront, we pay for it later.

That isn't what anyone said now come on, this is supposed to be a forum with a higher level of debate than "out there"

Look at this way, why does the state provide education? Because an educated citizen is less likely to rely on the state correct? I mean theoretically of course, obviously there are problems with our educational system.

By the same logic it could be argued that keeping a poor woman from getting pregnant keeps her from becoming even poorer and certainly keeps her from bringing a poor child into existence.

 

[OODA_Loop]

That isn't what anyone said now come on, this is supposed to be a forum with a higher level of debate than "out there"

Higher debate ?

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. - JustTheFacts

 

[FA_Q2]

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?

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

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.

 

[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?

They want you to strap your kids in one of these as soon as they start to walk:

 

[JustTheFacts]

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

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.

 

[yidnar]

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 !!

 

[JustTheFacts]

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.