Welfare moms bring out the Republican in me

[shintao]

Yea, I agree that we need to provide a better way for single Moms so they can continue their education. Why? Because they'll achieve more with a better education than without.

Yes, we need a complete change of the educational system for all Americans to come up to the demands of todays society.

 

[uscitizen]

Yea, I agree that we need to provide a better way for single Moms so they can continue their education. Why? Because they'll achieve more with a better education than without.

Yes, we need a complete change of the educational system for all Americans to come up to the demands of todays society.

Yes we do however we will continue to bicker and fuss in extreme partisanship while the standards of living in our country drop.

 

[Luissa]

Oh can talk plenty of shit about them too. I would make the as financally responsible as the law allows.

While a mother is on Tanff the father has to pay what he can back to the state for that assistance.

I think an argument could be made that the law is not tough enough on the fathers. My point it does take two to tango as they say. And in solving the problem of underage pregancy part of the solution really needs to involve holding people and their behavior accountable. If you don't it's not going to get any better and if you esentially are rewarding people with things they would have otherwise had to pay for had they not engaged in said poor behavior, it's only going to get worse.

Not to get into my situation too much, but we shouldn't lump all single mothers into a small group. Yes, I am a single mom, but I sure as hell don't plan on having another child out of wedlock. I really don't get how people live off of Tanff for very long.
There is no way I could survive off of $454 a month, which is what you get for one child. And I don't care if you get $100 more for each child, that still isn't enough.

I did collect Tanff for one month, when my vacation ran out while on maternity leave. I didn't have to look for a job because I already had one, plus I was on maternity leave. The only reason why I made it through the month, is because I wasn't go anywhere and I had received enough diapers from my baby shower, and I had my car paid off.
I can also tell you, after my son was six weeks old I was back at work. I couldn't afford to live off of $454 for longer than that.

 

[California Girl]

I know in my state you have to be enrolled in a vocational program and work at least 24 hrs a week for them to pay for your childcare if you are going to school. So, right now I might be getting help with school but I have to pay the $986 for childcare myself. My son even receives therapy at the Head Start program he is enrolled in. And my mom has to watch him while I am at work. Which is fine, but I think it is crap they will pay for child care if you are going to be a dental assistant, but not if you are working on you BA.
They are telling single mom's, go to school, but don't be too successful. I think the state would more likely have to help a dental assistant later on, rather than someone who has there BA.

Yea, I agree that we need to provide a better way for single Moms so they can continue their education. Why? Because they'll achieve more with a better education than without.

But that is socialist

Long term, it is better for the individual, and better for the country.

 

[antagon]

Oh can talk plenty of shit about them too. I would make the as financally responsible as the law allows.

While a mother is on Tanff the father has to pay what he can back to the state for that assistance.

Single moms should be required to name the father of their child to get more than bare bones benefits. Then the state should go after the fathers to pay those benefits.

the system should be configured to coerce work and fathers (or a second parent) back into the home. as it is, men are banished from the home where the constitute a liability to the household's benefit entitlement and de-incentivized from legit work because of child support burdens.

 

[shintao]

Yea, I agree that we need to provide a better way for single Moms so they can continue their education. Why? Because they'll achieve more with a better education than without.

Yes, we need a complete change of the educational system for all Americans to come up to the demands of todays society.

Yes we do however we will continue to bicker and fuss in extreme partisanship while the standards of living in our country drop.

The Romans had a clue,... to go to a public house in the community and debate issues. The INTERNET isn't a bad tool in that regard, but it excludes a lot of the people who should be in the debate. Until we can rationally approach issues, we are surely doomed.

 

[AmericanFirst]

let the baby starve, how sad your life is that welfare mom's are your competition. You can and should strive for better.

If the mother was responsible the baby would not starve. Government's job is not to take care of the irresponsible.

 

[Rambunctious]

I live in a state with an unusually high rate of teenage pregnancy, and pregnancy before the age of 25 and out of wedlock. You would be appalled by what is handed out to these girls, who are rewarded for being socially irresonspible. I fail to understand why I, at 23 and working fulltime since the day i turned 18, who does the responsible thing and wears a condom, gets nothing, while a significant portion of my taxes pays for young, ignorant mom to get free everything - free housing, free food, free medical, free college.
Why is my apartment $600 a month, and hers $50? Why do I have to pay for college and she doesn't? I was raised, by my single, WORKING, 36 year old mother when i was born, that it's a disgrace to have a kid when you cant take care of yourself. She never got W.I.C. and food stamps and all that shit. It's a disgrace because you become a sponge. And what kind of message does it send to teenage girls? That it's okay to get knocked up and keep your baby, because Uncle Sam will give you a free ride?
Let's criminalize poor, unwed, young mothers for having children. CONTRACEPTION IS READILY AVAILABLE

I wouldn't criminalize them. I would educate them to see themselves as something more than a baby factory. And, no, I wouldn't be providing handouts for more than one child. Anyone can make a mistake so I'm comfortable with helping to provide the basics. Anything more than the basics, and she can work for it, just like everyone else. However, my sympathy ends with the second child. No more benefits for the second one.

The best education they can get is the wisdom that comes via necessity. When you help someone who should and could help themselves it sooths your soul, but takes a bit of soul from the person you've helped.

 

[syrenn]

I live in a state with an unusually high rate of teenage pregnancy, and pregnancy before the age of 25 and out of wedlock. You would be appalled by what is handed out to these girls, who are rewarded for being socially irresonspible. I fail to understand why I, at 23 and working fulltime since the day i turned 18, who does the responsible thing and wears a condom, gets nothing, while a significant portion of my taxes pays for young, ignorant mom to get free everything - free housing, free food, free medical, free college.
Why is my apartment $600 a month, and hers $50? Why do I have to pay for college and she doesn't? I was raised, by my single, WORKING, 36 year old mother when i was born, that it's a disgrace to have a kid when you cant take care of yourself. She never got W.I.C. and food stamps and all that shit. It's a disgrace because you become a sponge. And what kind of message does it send to teenage girls? That it's okay to get knocked up and keep your baby, because Uncle Sam will give you a free ride?
Let's criminalize poor, unwed, young mothers for having children. CONTRACEPTION IS READILY AVAILABLE

I agree, i am very tired of rewarding bad behavior of women (and the dead beat fathers) who can not financially take care of a child.

I truly believe that if NO funding was available to these girl/women there would be less of a problem. As it stands now its a sweet deal for them and the more they produce the more money and handouts they get.

Once is a mistake. Fine. In my opinion after the first child they get no more funds. PERIOD. All support of the first one is gone will be gone if they have a second child while still on the dole. Babies should not be a money making business.

You cant criminalize the women unless you are willing to do the same for the men. They are just as responsible.

 

[AmericanFirst]

We are the richest country in the history of man. We spend trillions to bomb people of color, and your major problem is poor children being fed by welfare. SAD

We don't spend millions to bomb people of color. We fight a war on terror and bomb muslim terrorists, just because those muslim terrorists are cowards and hide behind innocent men, women, and children makes it racist. I say send in more troops and hunt down those satan worshiping muslim terrosts and take care of the problem.

 

[AmericanFirst]

wow what a losers mentality

The real loser is you, idiot. If you had a mentallity it would be in a padded cell.

 

[AmericanFirst]

yes i believe in euthanizing a 99 year old woman, laying in a bed in a diaper, contracted into a fetal position, on oxygen and endless life support, who is in constant agony, who can no longer speak let alone retain consciousness, cant move, is force fed baby food, who is kept alive only so greedy nursing homes can make millions of dollars off medicaid. isnt that dignified?
judging from your moniker you must not be very far from this becoming a reality to you. my suggestion: live your life while you can

I was with you up untill now. NOBODY, not you and not the gov't has the right to play God. God decides when it is time for that 99 year old man or woman to die. Yours is a typical socialst attitude.

 

[shintao]

I live in a state with an unusually high rate of teenage pregnancy, and pregnancy before the age of 25 and out of wedlock. You would be appalled by what is handed out to these girls, who are rewarded for being socially irresonspible. I fail to understand why I, at 23 and working fulltime since the day i turned 18, who does the responsible thing and wears a condom, gets nothing, while a significant portion of my taxes pays for young, ignorant mom to get free everything - free housing, free food, free medical, free college.
Why is my apartment $600 a month, and hers $50? Why do I have to pay for college and she doesn't? I was raised, by my single, WORKING, 36 year old mother when i was born, that it's a disgrace to have a kid when you cant take care of yourself. She never got W.I.C. and food stamps and all that shit. It's a disgrace because you become a sponge. And what kind of message does it send to teenage girls? That it's okay to get knocked up and keep your baby, because Uncle Sam will give you a free ride?
Let's criminalize poor, unwed, young mothers for having children. CONTRACEPTION IS READILY AVAILABLE

I agree, i am very tired of rewarding bad behavior of women (and the dead beat fathers) who can not financially take care of a child.

I truly believe that if NO funding was available to these girl/women there would be less of a problem. As it stands now its a sweet deal for them and the more they produce the more money and handouts they get.

Once is a mistake. Fine. In my opinion after the first child they get no more funds. PERIOD. All support of the first one is gone will be gone if they have a second child while still on the dole. Babies should not be a money making business.

You cant criminalize the women unless you are willing to do the same for the men. They are just as responsible.

The cheapest approach, and thus the con approach is to tie tubes at the age of 12, to all American children. Consider the Bible & killing the first born. Then later in life, if a person can show fiscal responsibility and have those things necessary to raise a child, the court will issue an order for their tubes to be untied for the one pregnancy, and then retied. Divorces will not be allowed, so make sure this is your soul life mate, there will be no remarriages.

Several things might occur. Only the rich will be able to have tubes untied and produce children. More people will stop producing forcing our society to rely on foreigners to sustain our country. Welfare will end as we know it, and cause massive layoffs of social workers. Courts will come close to closing on social issues (divorce/alimony, etc.), and legal people will be laid off. There would be practically no dead beat dads/moms, because the two social security numbers are married for life.

There was an attempt to put this into motion:

Worried that welfare costs are rising as the number of taxpayers declines, state Rep. John LaBruzzo, R-Metairie, said Tuesday he is studying a plan to pay poor women $1,000 to have their Fallopian tubes tied.

LaBruzzo said he worries that people receiving government aid such as food stamps and publicly subsidized housing are reproducing at a faster rate than more affluent, better-educated people who presumably pay more tax revenue to the government. He said he is gathering statistics now.

"What I'm really studying is any and all possibilities that we can reduce the number of people that are going from generational welfare to generational welfare," he said.

He said his program would be voluntary. It could involve tubal ligation, encouraging other forms of birth control or, to avoid charges of gender discrimination, vasectomies for men.

It also could include tax incentives for college-educated, higher-income people to have more children, he said.

LaBruzzo, 38, is white, married to a lawyer, has a toddler daughter and holds a bachelor's degree from Louisiana State University.

LaBruzzo: Sterilization plan fights poverty - NOLA.com

 

[shintao]

yes i believe in euthanizing a 99 year old woman, laying in a bed in a diaper, contracted into a fetal position, on oxygen and endless life support, who is in constant agony, who can no longer speak let alone retain consciousness, cant move, is force fed baby food, who is kept alive only so greedy nursing homes can make millions of dollars off medicaid. isnt that dignified?
judging from your moniker you must not be very far from this becoming a reality to you. my suggestion: live your life while you can

I was with you up untill now. NOBODY, not you and not the gov't has the right to play God. God decides when it is time for that 99 year old man or woman to die. Yours is a typical socialst attitude.

I was talking to a women yesterday who was raised during the Cambodian killing fields time, and survived inside the gates of a Buddhist monastery. She said she expected change when she came to America, but it appears the two country's practice the same behaviors, killing, raping, etc. It struck me at the time, she said the difference is that America takes care of it's poor and elderly, where in Cambodia they just fade away. That is the way of life/the philosophy for a Buddhist. It might not be the same if they had the ability to play god as we do.

I could see our medical advancements failing if we started pulling the plug, what would be next? No heart repairs? No kidney transplants. How far would we degrade ourselves? After all, a doctor takes an oath to extend life, and yes, to become god, because the ultimate goal of medicine is for the body to live for eternity. There is no point where medical technology reaches a point of not striving for the goal. It is only by the wishes of a person that they should be allowed to die. Thus the living will was developed to provide a legal means to state death to the body.