What the actual ****?!?!?!

[Czernobog]

Makes sense to me. Where's the problem?

So, preventing children from getting an education, a job, drive a car, or even prove their own citizenship seems perfectly reasonable to you?

That will never happen.

These women will give up the name of their baby-daddy in order to get the free assistance.

And if turns out the daddy is also her daddy, we can go arrest him.

Again with the assumptions about all single mothers...

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

Schools no longer require birth certificates.

Funny. Every single school I enrolled my kid in has. And immunization records. And every doctor required a birth certificate to see him.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Boss]

I disagree. I expect men to lawyer up as soon as they're named and that's when the legal fees come in. And the database will certainly be the next step. It won't take long for folks to realize that if you had the database in place, you only need to test once and keep the results.

And again, I'm not against cracking down on deadbeat Dad's. I'd much rather put them on the hook than see them escape. But cutting off benefits with a pretty harsh timeline and potentially lifelong consequences for the child? That's a very very extreme solution to put on a new mother who is dealing with God knows what else.

Usually, those who sue the government don't get anywhere. The government retains lawyers already, there is no extra expense. Again, there is no need for a database. This is a small isolated problem that only involves a relatively small number of individuals. There would certainly be constitutional issues with a database, so that idea is DOA already. Put it out of your head because it's total nonsense.

And again, it's not going to mean any detrimental consequence for the child that they don't already face. I don't care what the mother is dealing with, her child comes first. If she doesn't care about the child, we can find suitable parents who would. I would wager that most of these moms would be forthcoming with naming a father if it meant losing benefits.

If you're not against cracking down on deadbeat dads, what is your proposal to deal with this problem? I'm not seeing any better alternative recommended and I'm all ears... present something that would do the trick and we'll discuss it. In my opinion, this is precisely the type of proactive steps we should be taking... cut the benefits off if they can't name the baby-daddy.

No, I'll confess, I don't have a really better idea. My concern is in the exceptions that you can legislate your way out of with time. Non-consensual sex could easily lead to a situation where the mother can't name the father. A kid produced out of wedlock has enough problems to overcome on their own with saddling Mom with some extra trauma on top of that. I'm also thinking that enforcing a father to submit to a paternity test is going to be a pretty difficult thing to enforce and enforce correctly.

The only solutions I have are what I put forward before:
1. Make birth control freely available and encourage usage for everyone. Try to create a culture where nearly all pregnancies are planned.
2. Go to the guaranteed minimum income system and eliminate all of these welfare programs.

Like I said, I have not read this bill and the only knowledge I have of it is what the biased OP has to say. Since Cybernoggin has a history of lying and distorting things, I can confidently assume the same is true here, but again, I have not read this legislation and known nothing about it.

Generally speaking, the idea of requiring the names of both parents in order to obtain government assistance is a good idea as a way to deal with the problem. Liberals don't want anyone touching anything concerning welfare unless it's to add more recipients or increase the amounts per recipient, or make it easier to obtain.

As for your solutions... none of them work to hold deadbeat fathers accountable for the financial burden of their children. It's just more handing out of freebies paid for by the taxpayers. That's moving in the opposite direction of solving our problems. But again, I don't have a problem teaching adolescents about birth control as long as it is taught that abstinence is the only 100% effective form. Knock yourself out but that doesn't resolve the deadbeat dad problem.

As for your 'guaranteed minimum income system' it's been tried. We've been doing it here for 84 years... it doesn't work. Income has to be determined by value in the free market. If it's not worth $X to a capitalist to pay you for a particular job, guess how many of those jobs capitalists will offer? It's not rocket science. They've even tried getting rid of capitalists... that didn't work either... over 100 million people died.

 

[koshergrl]

Schools no longer require birth certificates.

Funny. Every single school I enrolled my kid in has. And immunization records. And every doctor required a birth certificate to see him.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No, they haven't. They can accept them. They can't demand them and they can't exclude your child from attending school based on the fact that you don't have a birth certificate.

"Although a school district might request documents such as those listed above to verify your child’s age, a school district may not prevent or discourage your child from enrolling in or attending school because he or she lacks a birth certificate or has records that indicate a foreign place of birth, such as a foreign birth certificate. "

"A school district may not prevent your child from enrolling in or attending school if you choose not to provide your child’s social security number.

" A school district may not require you to provide your own social security number in order for your child to enroll in or attend school.

U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division

U.S. Department of Education
Office for Civil Rights
Office of the General Counsel

Fact Sheet: Information on the Rights of All Children to Enroll in School



https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2014/05/08/plylerfact.pdf

When the school demands to see your social security number or your child's, you just say no. When they demand to see a birth certificate, you don't have it.

Gads people are sheep.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I disagree. I expect men to lawyer up as soon as they're named and that's when the legal fees come in. And the database will certainly be the next step. It won't take long for folks to realize that if you had the database in place, you only need to test once and keep the results.

And again, I'm not against cracking down on deadbeat Dad's. I'd much rather put them on the hook than see them escape. But cutting off benefits with a pretty harsh timeline and potentially lifelong consequences for the child? That's a very very extreme solution to put on a new mother who is dealing with God knows what else.

Usually, those who sue the government don't get anywhere. The government retains lawyers already, there is no extra expense. Again, there is no need for a database. This is a small isolated problem that only involves a relatively small number of individuals. There would certainly be constitutional issues with a database, so that idea is DOA already. Put it out of your head because it's total nonsense.

And again, it's not going to mean any detrimental consequence for the child that they don't already face. I don't care what the mother is dealing with, her child comes first. If she doesn't care about the child, we can find suitable parents who would. I would wager that most of these moms would be forthcoming with naming a father if it meant losing benefits.

If you're not against cracking down on deadbeat dads, what is your proposal to deal with this problem? I'm not seeing any better alternative recommended and I'm all ears... present something that would do the trick and we'll discuss it. In my opinion, this is precisely the type of proactive steps we should be taking... cut the benefits off if they can't name the baby-daddy.

No, I'll confess, I don't have a really better idea. My concern is in the exceptions that you can legislate your way out of with time. Non-consensual sex could easily lead to a situation where the mother can't name the father. A kid produced out of wedlock has enough problems to overcome on their own with saddling Mom with some extra trauma on top of that. I'm also thinking that enforcing a father to submit to a paternity test is going to be a pretty difficult thing to enforce and enforce correctly.

The only solutions I have are what I put forward before:
1. Make birth control freely available and encourage usage for everyone. Try to create a culture where nearly all pregnancies are planned.
2. Go to the guaranteed minimum income system and eliminate all of these welfare programs.

Like I said, I have not read this bill and the only knowledge I have of it is what the biased OP has to say. Since Cybernoggin has a history of lying and distorting things, I can confidently assume the same is true here, but again, I have not read this legislation and known nothing about it.

Generally speaking, the idea of requiring the names of both parents in order to obtain government assistance is a good idea as a way to deal with the problem. Liberals don't want anyone touching anything concerning welfare unless it's to add more recipients or increase the amounts per recipient, or make it easier to obtain.

As for your solutions... none of them work to hold deadbeat fathers accountable for the financial burden of their children. It's just more handing out of freebies paid for by the taxpayers. That's moving in the opposite direction of solving our problems. But again, I don't have a problem teaching adolescents about birth control as long as it is taught that abstinence is the only 100% effective form. Knock yourself out but that doesn't resolve the deadbeat dad problem.

As for your 'guaranteed minimum income system' it's been tried. We've been doing it here for 84 years... it doesn't work. Income has to be determined by value in the free market. If it's not worth $X to a capitalist to pay you for a particular job, guess how many of those jobs capitalists will offer? It's not rocket science. They've even tried getting rid of capitalists... that didn't work either... over 100 million people died.

What we are doing here isn't the guaranteed minimum income proposal floating around. What we have now is a patchwork of failing policies that sometimes work together, and sometimes work against each other. I won't go farther into it here, but do some reading on it if you can. Guaranteed Minimum Income would mean getting rid of minimum wage, food stamps, and all government handouts and letting the market decide things past that. IT's more efficient, cheaper, and better for industry in the long run compared to what we have.

 

[Boss]

What we are doing here isn't the guaranteed minimum income proposal floating around. What we have now is a patchwork of failing policies that sometimes work together, and sometimes work against each other. I won't go farther into it here, but do some reading on it if you can. Guaranteed Minimum Income would mean getting rid of minimum wage, food stamps, and all government handouts and letting the market decide things past that. IT's more efficient, cheaper, and better for industry in the long run compared to what we have.

I'm sorry, I don't see any difference in "guaranteed minimum income" and "mandated minimum wage" ...it sounds synonymous. What we have is an 84 year old progressive policy that has failed to provide the "living wage" it promised. I've explained why it fails before, it's because it baselines labor costs and the market adjusts.