Plea for help

[crabcake]

because that is my body that we are talking about and the choice to have children should be up to me and my partner. Just like abortion.

I have raised my kids just fine so now I would never suspect that. I also like my privacy and my god given right to choose and I do not think that should be taken away because of the ill actions of others,

If we did that it will only be the gateway to other things for the government to control and since they are not doing such a great job as it is I would like to keep as much control of MY life as possible.

It might be your body, but it's my tax dollars that kick in when you decide you want to pump out more kids than you can pay daycare for, feed, etc. Like I said in my previous post, I'm not telling you that you can't have 100 rugrats if you want; but if you don't get pre-screened/licensed to procreate/parent, then don't come knocking on Uncle Sam's door to put food on your table, a roof over your head, reduce your light bill, pay your medical bills, etc. :shrug:

 

[crabcake]

ok but what if they do pass some sort of screening and they still turn out as bad parents? Then all that tax dolloars to expend on such a program on top of the welfare they will now get because they passed the screening. So we are in a bigger hole than before

I'm not suggesting every parent on public assistance is a deadbeat screw-up, but let's face facts ... how many of them accept it on a temporary basis? Not too many ... it's becomes a way of life. All those screw-ups on it now would not be getting it ... screw-ups typically have a pattern. Not too many people are upstanding responsible citizens one day, and wake up on a Wednesday and decide to become a burden on society for the rest of their lives. Those folks who have the history (bad finances/credit, can't hold a job, have no permanent residence or citizenship) ... don't get the license. If they know before spreading their legs that Uncle Sam won't be there for them when they DO get knocked up, I believe it will curtail some (though not all) of the behavior.

And those who do genuinely develop a financial situation requiring public assistance only do it for genuine situations (e.g., house burned down and lost everything; physical disability preventing them from working; etc.). But public assistance must have a deadline or people will just live on it forever.

 

[crabcake]

And remember, I'm not saying you can/can't have kids. I'm saying if you do it without passing some sort of test/screening, then you lose any rights to public assistance. That's all.

Karma

you know even the "good" hard working ppl run into hard times for unknown reasons and do need a little help just to get by. Not all of us are welfare munchers.. Im just glad you have been lucky enough not to need help.. Things do happen...

I address this in a later post. However, public assistance is intended to be that -- assistance! Not a life-long crutch to rest your armpit on while the rest of us sweat away to make your ends meet. Take a second job if you need to, and don't procreate again until you re-establish yourself into a situation that you can provide for your family.

 

[Nicole_in_somd]

It might be your body, but it's my tax dollars that kick in when you decide you want to pump out more kids than you can pay daycare for, feed, etc. Like I said in my previous post, I'm not telling you that you can't have 100 rugrats if you want; but if you don't get pre-screened/licensed to procreate/parent, then don't come knocking on Uncle Sam's door to put food on your table, a roof over your head, reduce your light bill, pay your medical bills, etc. :shrug:

do you really think that your tax dollars are supporting all those people on welfare?

Why is everything so extrem with you? Lets talk about this logically.

You are proposing that the government screen me as a fit parent. So what will that entail?

You will have to have funding to start this program up and sustain it. How much do you think that will cost?

What type of personnel will be needed to run this program? What will be the requirements for the jobs and how much do you think that will cost?

What should be the criteria of passing and failing?

Who should determine that?

Again what happens if the parent passes said screening and still ends up as a loser parent and on welfare? That is costing us twice as much as before

 

[Nicole_in_somd]

And remember, I'm not saying you can/can't have kids. I'm saying if you do it without passing some sort of test/screening, then you lose any rights to public assistance. That's all.

Do you really think it will stop there? Because once you cross that door you are opening it up to a hell of a lot more than just that.

 

[Nicole_in_somd]

I'm not suggesting every parent on public assistance is a deadbeat screw-up, but let's face facts ... how many of them accept it on a temporary basis? Not too many ... it's becomes a way of life. All those screw-ups on it now would not be getting it ... screw-ups typically have a pattern. Not too many people are upstanding responsible citizens one day, and wake up on a Wednesday and decide to become a burden on society for the rest of their lives. Those folks who have the history (bad finances/credit, can't hold a job, have no permanent residence or citizenship) ... don't get the license. If they know before spreading their legs that Uncle Sam won't be there for them when they DO get knocked up, I believe it will curtail some (though not all) of the behavior.

And those who do genuinely develop a financial situation requiring public assistance only do it for genuine situations (e.g., house burned down and lost everything; physical disability preventing them from working; etc.). But public assistance must have a deadline or people will just live on it forever.

I agree that public assitance needs to be refined and regulated more. I do not agree having the government stepping in at the choice of having kids. But let me see your plan first. I could be wrong. I will read it and see.

 

[Nicole_in_somd]

Karma


I address this in a later post. However, public assistance is intended to be that -- assistance! Not a life-long crutch to rest your armpit on while the rest of us sweat away to make your ends meet. Take a second job if you need to, and don't procreate again until you re-establish yourself into a situation that you can provide for your family.

You are assuming too much on this and I think you are exaggerating on this as well.
Show me the source to back it up so I can read it and understand what you are saying.

 

[sockgirl77]

I agree that public assitance needs to be refined and regulated more. I do not agree having the government stepping in at the choice of having kids. But let me see your plan first. I could be wrong. I will read it and see.

What about people that are certified disabled? This means that they cannot work nor take care of children. Yet, they decided to have not just one but two kids. In this case, the government should have been able to step in. A person who in uncapable of taking care of herself should not be able to have children. Aren't you the slightest bit pissed that your tax dollars are paying for these people to live? I am.

 

[crabcake]

do you really think that your tax dollars are supporting all those people on welfare?

Uhh, yea! I pay taxes. Taxes pay for assistance programs (as well as a plethora of other things). Do you think the gov't pulls money for welfare out of it's ass?

Why is everything so extrem with you? Lets talk about this logically.

I'm not "extreme". I'm talking about real situations with real potential solutions. You didn't offer one except to say " what about my freedom of religion" ... what does your religion have to do with the government? NADA ... liberals make damn sure of that.

You are proposing that the government screen me as a fit parent. So what will that entail?

It entails a review of your mental, physical, financial, emotional status as well as classes in parenting. Can you provide a stable home for a child? Can you pay for daycare? Food? Medical care? etc? Do you have a stable employment history? Do you have a criminal record? etc ... I didn't draft an application during the luncheon today, mind you ... but hearing about the abuse and neglect sure got me thinking about it.

You will have to have funding to start this program up and sustain it. How much do you think that will cost?

I had to actually work this afternoon, so I didn't have time to research salaries, supplies, application printing costs, space needs, county/city/state/federal roles and responsibilities, etc. But I'm going to take a stab and say it'll be around the same or less than we spend in welfare addicts, and even if it's more, the end result is a more educated generation of parents who are more responsible in terms of providing for their own children, and THAT is something I'd be okay with my tax dollars paying for vs some lazy government leech.

What type of personnel will be needed to run this program? What will be the requirements for the jobs and how much do you think that will cost?

See previous response.

What should be the criteria of passing and failing?

See earlier answer.

Who should determine that?
Societal common sense. It's not rocket science ... can't support your kid? Oh well, you don't get to have one. Have a criminal history of physical abuse/assault? Tough luck! Keep your pecker in your pants!

Again what happens if the parent passes said screening and still ends up as a loser parent and on welfare? That is costing us twice as much as before.

As I said before, few people just decide one day to become a government leech. Those who are chronic teet-suckers have similiar qualities that are not too hard to identify as potential indicators. That's not to say that a person who "passes" won't hit hard times. But "hard times" are one thing; being a lazy teet sucker is something entirely different.

If my answers don't suit you, what do YOU suggest we do to curtail the problem?

 

[Nicole_in_somd]

What about people that are certified disabled? This means that they cannot work nor take care of children. Yet, they decided to have not just one but two kids. In this case, the government should have been able to step in. A person who in uncapable of taking care of herself should not be able to have children. Aren't you the slightest bit pissed that your tax dollars are paying for these people to live? I am.

Oh yeah I am more than slightly pissed about that. But again who am I or the government to say if you can reproduce or not?

Socki what if they determined that you could not have kids or take it a step further and say you are not taking care of the kids the way they feel you should. Becauses that could be possible once we start something like this.

I am all for what crab is saying. I know generations of families that make welfare a lifetime goal but how is something like this ever going to work and what are we going to open up once we take these steps?

 

[sockgirl77]

Oh yeah I am more than slightly pissed about that. But again who am I or the government to say if you can reproduce or not?

Socki what if they determined that you could not have kids or take it a step further and say you are not taking care of the kids the way they feel you should. Becauses that could be possible once we start something like this.

I am all for what crab is saying. I know generations of families that make welfare a lifetime goal but how is something like this ever going to work and what are we going to open up once we take these steps?

I'm not the slightest bit threatened. I take care of my kids physically and financially. I'd expect someone to take my kids if they were not cared for. So, if you come to my house and find bugs on my dishes and find me mooching off the system, you have my permission to find my kids a suitable home. :shrug:

 

[crabcake]

You are assuming too much on this and I think you are exaggerating on this as well.
Show me the source to back it up so I can read it and understand what you are saying.

How am I assuming too much with that post? Are you saying that welfare SHOULD be a life-long option for people? If so, I hope you enjoy working until your 100 because that's what it's inevitably going to take to foot the country's welfare bill in another 20 years if we don't curtail irresponsible procreation now.

I, on the other hand, plan to retire and enjoy my golden years. I don't want to be forced to work forever so I can pay for others' mistakes.

 

[crabcake]

Oh yeah I am more than slightly pissed about that. But again who am I or the government to say if you can reproduce or not?

YOU'RE A TAXPAYER! Or you're one of the people who is suckling at the gov't teet. You tell us!

Socki what if they determined that you could not have kids or take it a step further and say you are not taking care of the kids the way they feel you should. Becauses that could be possible once we start something like this.

I am all for what crab is saying. I know generations of families that make welfare a lifetime goal but how is something like this ever going to work and what are we going to open up once we take these steps?

We're not opening up anything; we're shutting down the lazy, irresponsible, unstable people who drop their kids off on somoene else because they don't want or can't take care of them anymore. Period!

No one is telling you "how" to raise your kids, per se. It's not a matter of "put them to bed at this time; discipline them this way; etc." It's basic criteria to determine if you have the fundamentals of being a parent and being able to provide for your family. Period!

 

[crabcake]

:sniggle@sg: oof:

 

[sockgirl77]

:sniggle@sg: oof:

I'm not pregnant anymore. So, I've lost my hormonal excuse.

 

[crabcake]

I'm not pregnant anymore. So, I've lost my hormonal excuse.

Ahhh, c'mon ... everyone knows that your hormones stay wacky for months after you give birth.

 

[sockgirl77]

Ahhh, c'mon ... everyone knows that your hormones stay wacky for months after you give birth.

I'm sure it was seen enough before I hit delete.

 

[crabcake]

Well, I've offered up my proposal. Anyone else?

Seriously, this luncheon today got me to thinking ... all the public assistance (welfare), all the organizations out there living off charitable donations to help educate the public, etc. Imagine the money that could be saved (both government and charitable) if people were actually made responsible for their own actions. :lightbulb:

 

[river rat]

I was thinking about that today as I attended a charity fund raiser luncheon for child abuse/neglect. I think that people should be required to obtain a child license before getting pregnant/having kids. If they do NOT obtain said license, they lose all rights to any/all public assistance for themselves and their child, and should they need public assistance, they lose custody of the kid -- period! People should NOT be allowed to freely procreate without having some education and pass some sort of screening process to determine they are fit, equipped and mature enough to raise another life.

I due time CC, in due time.

Our rights are being chiseled away one by one. Thanks to dumbazzes that think like you, will we soon have none.

 

[Nicole_in_somd]

How am I assuming too much with that post? Are you saying that welfare SHOULD be a life-long option for people? If so, I hope you enjoy working until your 100 because that's what it's inevitably going to take to foot the country's welfare bill in another 20 years if we don't curtail irresponsible procreation now.

I, on the other hand, plan to retire and enjoy my golden years. I don't want to be forced to work forever so I can pay for others' mistakes.

Where did I say that? I had enough sense to plan for my retirement. I could retire now if I wanted to.

Also I am aganist lifers on welfare too. I do not think families should be allowed to stay on welfare or have kid after kid either. I do have a problem with the government stepping in to evaluate if I am allowed to have kids. Even if it is only for people that may think they are going to ask for assitance down the road or not it will not stop there.

You will also have to deal with the religious leaders and communites. Maybe I am not making my self clear I do not like it anymore than you do.

Franklin Roosevelt first set up welfare during the Great Depression. Because the people were starving and riots were strating to rise everywhere.

In order to prevent a revolution, Roosevelt e started the welfare system to prevent the American government from being overthrown.

What would happen if all the people currently receiving public assistance decided to band together and riot because of this screening? Not just them but what about the Catholic Church? Or other religions? You say they do not matter, yes they do and if you think about it more you will realize to what extent they do.

I will not get into a debate about what to do about these women, because I would need to do more research on the subject, check the statistics out and evaluate alternatives before I assume anything.

Also, How do they get welfare? Well, if you need welfare you have to prove it. This should require an even more laborious process then we have today. While you don’t just go up and say I have a kid and I want a check and food stamps and poof there it is but it could be restrictive even more.

So if you want to do something then why not at the process? Welfare, education, business subsidies and bailouts, infrastructure, job training and placement these are not things guaranteed by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights so work it from there.

There is actually an incentive for low-income women to have children out of wedlock. There is a disincentive for people to find work, gain better skills, because they lose their welfare benefits.

Reform for our welfare was and still underway. You can’t ban it because there are people out there that really need it. But you can set the time on welfare even stricter. You can make the people involved attend job training and placement and no repeat offenders after so many times.