bringing up kids on welfare .

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Sun Jul 20, 2008 12:21 am

Ok we've got the abortion topic going and one could say that a reason (not a good one, but a reason never the less) to terminate could be because a woman may not be able to afford to have another kid ...so it got me thinking

Lets get away from the abortion part and ask the question ....is it right to have kids when you can't afford them.

Is it ok to just keep popping out children while the state picks up the tab??????

I say NO if you can't afford them don't have them .... so, what do you guys feel about it ???????:driving:

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 1:19 am

What does "when you can't afford them" mean? I presume that if one receives social security it's at a level where one can afford to maintain any children in the family. Does "when you can't afford them" mean when you're not allowed social security and you have no other income? Or does it mean when you're eligible for social security payments (in which case "when you can't afford them" might or might not be an accurate description, if you'll excuse me saying so).

There are quite a few countries which make payments to families in exchange for them having children, those states regard their citizens having children as beneficial to their society. France, Italy, Australia... I'd need to look up the details but it's not uncommon. Britain does it too, it's called Child Benefit and it's not means tested. Are you only including means-tested benefits in your "keep popping out children while the state picks up the tab" comment? Isn't that an attempt at snobbism? Should Good People refuse to accept child benefit payments?

If I thought you could read it from start to finish I'd bring up Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal For Preventing The Children of Poor People in Ireland From Being A Burden to Their Parents or Country, and For Making Them Beneficial to The Public" written in 1729. That was supposed to bring this discussion to an end for all time as to whether the children of the poor should be forced to suffer for their parent's supposed indigence, but here we are again in the 21st century, 280 years later, still pressing up against the same brutal inhuman selfishness. Even Swift at his most satirically callous never considered forcibly preventing them from being born in the first place.

jpcme · Post by **jpcme** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 2:45 am

I say no to.

shelbell · Post by **shelbell** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 2:52 am

pantsonfire321@aol.com;922467 wrote: Ok we've got the abortion topic going and one could say that a reason (not a good one, but a reason never the less) to terminate could be because a woman may not be able to afford to have another kid ...so it got me thinking

Lets get away from the abortion part and ask the question ....is it right to have kids when you can't afford them.

Is it ok to just keep popping out children while the state picks up the tab??????

I say NO if you can't afford them don't have them .... so, what do you guys feel about it ???????:driving:

If they can't afford them it doesn't mean abortion. There a lots of families that desperately want children but can't have them and that can afford to raise them. Adoption is a good choice and alternative.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 5:14 am

pantsonfire321@aol.com;922467 wrote: Ok we've got the abortion topic going and one could say that a reason (not a good one, but a reason never the less) to terminate could be because a woman may not be able to afford to have another kid ...so it got me thinking

Lets get away from the abortion part and ask the question ....is it right to have kids when you can't afford them.

Is it ok to just keep popping out children while the state picks up the tab??????

I say NO if you can't afford them don't have them .... so, what do you guys feel about it ???????:driving:
Not being able to afford to raise the child is never an excuse to kill him/her. Adoption is the option when pregnant. Not having intercourse is also an option if you don't want kids.

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Sun Jul 20, 2008 5:58 am

I said, lets get away from the abortion aspect of it (i only mentioned it because it gave me the idea for the thread).:-5

I don't agree for one minute with people who say they are going to terminate a pregnancy because they can't afford to raise that child but a lot of people do use that excuse. I also see plenty of people sit on their fat backsides popping out kids and never doing a day's work in their lifes and all they do is whinge that the state doesn't give them enough money .

My point is, should people knowingly have children and let the taxpayer /state pay for the upkeep of their children .

Should a person pay their own way in life or sit on welfare . Lats face it we can all have kids if some one else is paying for them . Personnally i wouldn't consider having another child if i was out of work and reliant on state hand outs ..and ..i think it's sets a bad example to your kids if they see you doing nothing .

....Ok just remember i'm talking about people who have no desire to earn a living not people in difficult circumstances or unable . I'm talking about the lazy and bone idle.

.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:07 am

pantsonfire321@aol.com;922557 wrote: I said, lets get away from the abortion aspect of it (i only mentioned it because it gave me the idea for the thread).:-5

I don't agree for one minute with people who say they are going to terminate a pregnancy because they can't afford to raise that child but a lot of people do use that excuse. I also see plenty of people sit on their fat backsides popping out kids and never doing a day's work in their lifes and all they do is whinge that the state doesn't give them enough money .

My point is, should people knowingly have children and let the taxpayer /state pay for the upkeep of their children .

Should a person pay their own way in life or sit on welfare . Lats face it we can all have kids if some one else is paying for them . Personnally i wouldn't consider having another child if i was out of work and reliant on state hand outs ..and ..i think it's sets a bad example to your kids if they see you doing nothing .

....Ok just remember i'm talking about people who have no desire to earn a living not people in difficult circumstances or unable . I'm talking about the lazy and bone idle.

.
No of course they shouldn't be raising kids like that, but what's the option? We're certainly not going to shame her into ... um ... inaction.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:14 am

Her?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:30 am

RedGlitter;922567 wrote: Her?

Oops. Good catch. Assuming the guy's responsible enough to stick around but not responsible enough to get a job ... and those guys do exist ... they should both practice .... solitaire.

Then there's the mooches that the woman's too insecure to kick out. Them too.

cars · Post by **cars** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:30 am

pantsonfire321@aol.com;922557 wrote: I said, lets get away from the abortion aspect of it (i only mentioned it because it gave me the idea for the thread).:-5

I don't agree for one minute with people who say they are going to terminate a pregnancy because they can't afford to raise that child but a lot of people do use that excuse. I also see plenty of people sit on their fat backsides popping out kids and never doing a day's work in their lifes and all they do is whinge that the state doesn't give them enough money .

My point is, should people knowingly have children and let the taxpayer /state pay for the upkeep of their children .

Should a person pay their own way in life or sit on welfare . Lats face it we can all have kids if some one else is paying for them . Personnally i wouldn't consider having another child if i was out of work and reliant on state hand outs ..and ..i think it's sets a bad example to your kids if they see you doing nothing .

....Ok just remember i'm talking about people who have no desire to earn a living not people in difficult circumstances or unable . I'm talking about the lazy and bone idle.

.
People who have no desire to earn a living are on WELFARE!

People in difficult circumstances or are unable to earn a living, are on Social Security! (Most of these people "have paid into" SS while they "were" working, so as to provide for such occurances!) (That's the way it is here in the USA)

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 7:14 am

Like Acc said, what is the option? Before the child comes into play, I would say they don't have a *privilege* to have a kid but once it's here, the question becomes rather moot. I say privilege because I think it is one but also regardless of their crappy financial responsibility status, they do have a *right* to have a child....no one really has the right to prevent that from happening although they have a bit of place telling the deadbeats off for having a kid others will have to support. I certainly don't want to see anything like forced sterilization or forced terminations, although I can't believe that would ever happen in the UK or the US anyway.

I think not having a child because one is poor is a smart thing but I also think it depends on the degree of poverty. It's one thing to scrimp to buy school supplies and quite another when you can't feed or clothe your child.

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 7:33 am

The flaw in current western thinking is that money is happiness. Afford to have kids? Does that include affording to have them being raised in child care because we are so busy in our careers to bother raising our own kids anymore?

Does that also include being able to afford to stick our aging parents into home care because we are too busy to bother minding our parents anymore?

Does this include showering our kids with the most expensive gifts at Christmas and birthdays to make up for the lack of quality time we spend with them due to our drive for more and more.

Society and ‘family’ has changed over the past decades and I don’t know if it is in the right direction.

Some of the poorest countries in the world still have the most happiest people, while in the western world we are pumped up on pharmaceutical drugs, sugar and caffeine.

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Sun Jul 20, 2008 7:44 am

Ok so what about this ...a person (woman /couple) are in receipt of welfare/social security/benefits and they continue to have children 'because it's their right' how about we just stop giving them money so they have to get off their back sides and get a job to pay for the kids they have a right too.

Am i the only one sick and tired of seeing couples/women with 4,5,6 kids and often from different fathers and have never done a days work in their lives.

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 7:53 am

Then the question isn’t about having kids or not having kids it is about your governments ability to manage its welfare system and stop those abusing it. Hold you government responsible not kids that are unfortunately born into these families.

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Sun Jul 20, 2008 8:03 am

mikeinie;922691 wrote: Then the question isn’t about having kids or not having kids it is about your governments ability to manage its welfare system and stop those abusing it. Hold you government responsible not kids that are unfortunately born into these families.

I don't blame the kids for one second . They can't help it if their parents are lazy ..it just saddens me that the cycle will probably keep going because they don't have good role models :-5.

mikeinie · Post by **mikeinie** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 8:07 am

pantsonfire321@aol.com;922703 wrote: I don't blame the kids for one second . They can't help it if their parents are lazy ..it just saddens me that the cycle will probably keep going because they don't have good role models :-5.

Very true.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 8:25 am

It's wrong for a male to enter into a sexual relationship with any female and then not accept financial responsibility for the birth and upbringing of a resultant child. It's irresponsible for a female to enter into a sexual relationship with any male simply because she wants a baby. Children have a much better chance of becoming productive adult beings by growing up in a two parent household. Children being brought up on welfare tend to perpetuate and enable the welfare system and create a dumming down of society in general. I support early term abortions for pregnant females when there is every possibility of a child being raised on welfare.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 9:01 am

pantsonfire321@aol.com;922678 wrote: Ok so what about this ...a person (woman /couple) are in receipt of welfare/social security/benefits and they continue to have children 'because it's their right' how about we just stop giving them money so they have to get off their back sides and get a job to pay for the kids they have a right too.

Am i the only one sick and tired of seeing couples/women with 4,5,6 kids and often from different fathers and have never done a days work in their lives.

No you're not the only one. Unless you're willing to support the state forcibly taking the child/children or forcing abortion, I don't see what choice you have. No way would I support risking the child starving on the chance that a slug might get off his/her ass and find a job.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 9:03 am

Lon;922733 wrote: It's wrong for a male to enter into a sexual relationship with any female and then not accept financial responsibility for the birth and upbringing of a resultant child. It's irresponsible for a female to enter into a sexual relationship with any male simply because she wants a baby. Children have a much better chance of becoming productive adult beings by growing up in a two parent household. Children being brought up on welfare tend to perpetuate and enable the welfare system and create a dumming down of society in general. I support early term abortions for pregnant females when there is every possibility of a child being raised on welfare.
Yeh, better to kill them than to give them less than the best, right.

Would you mandate these abortions?

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 10:09 am

Accountable;922817 wrote: Yeh, better to kill them than to give them less than the best, right.

Would you mandate these abortions?

No, but I do support a woman's right to make the choice.

The first time a male fathers a child that he does not support, give him a pill that will sterilize him for good.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 11:16 am

Lon;922888 wrote: No, but I do support a woman's right to make the choice.

The first time a male fathers a child that he does not support, give him a pill that will sterilize him for good.
Nice double-standard.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 12:07 pm

Pants

(for those lazy & no will to do anything) Being on Welfare is their income.

They just keep having kids & all the benefits keep coming.

You have a problem with that ?:-5

Of course it's wrong - watched it for years - but what do we do to curve this cycle?

Patsy

Post by **spot** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 2:53 pm

pantsonfire321@aol.com;922557 wrote: I also see plenty of people sit on their fat backsides popping out kids and never doing a day's work in their lifes and all they do is whinge that the state doesn't give them enough money .Some of the nicest people I know brought up children while receiving social security. How can you equate owning money with being an asset to society? What possible link have you discovered between drawing social security or having wealth, on the one hand, with being an utter toerag or being a blessing to the community on the other?

The blessings to the community tend not to whinge, least of all that that the state doesn't give them enough money. You seem to live in a cesspit if that's all you've ever discovered about people.

along-for-the-ride · Post by **along-for-the-ride** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:07 pm

In the real world, most couples during the moments they are engaging in sex, are not thinking about a baby, the baby's future,or their financial situation. Many of these couples are not thinking at all...........just enjoying the moment. IMO

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:09 pm

And then again there's no sense ignoring the fact that it's true.

Here in the States I know people who admit having more kids so they can get that extra $350 a month and all the help from WIC (women-infant care) and AHCCCS (arizona health care cost containment system) They actually think that money is going to carry them. And no, these specific people are not assets nor raising assets to society. Not because they're poor. Because they're stupid.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:50 pm

Accountable;922981 wrote: Nice double-standard.

Not really when you consider females that are raped.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:53 pm

Lon;923283 wrote: Not really when you consider females that are raped.
Now there's a leap! From discussing welfare for single moms (basically) to equating deadbeat dad's to rapists.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 3:59 pm

Accountable;923288 wrote: Now there's a leap! From discussing welfare for single moms (basically) to equating deadbeat dad's to rapists.

It's no leap if you refer to your previous posts re: abortion

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 4:03 pm

Lon;923298 wrote: It's no leap if you refer to your previous posts re: abortion
You're say I drew the parallel myself? :-2 I'd say you misread something somewhere.

shelbell · Post by **shelbell** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 2:39 pm

Accountable;922575 wrote: Oops. Good catch. Assuming the guy's responsible enough to stick around but not responsible enough to get a job ... and those guys do exist ... they should both practice .... solitaire.

Then there's the mooches that the woman's too insecure to kick out. Them too.

Wow Accountable, you just described my20yr old daughter and her boyfriend to a T. They have one baby and another on the way. They live with his mother and they depend completely on welfare and WIC....they are both able bodies yet refuse to try to make it on their own.:-5

shelbell · Post by **shelbell** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 2:49 pm

fuzzy butt;922502 wrote: so the raising of "YOUR OWN " flesh and blood is a matter of financial status?

fuzzy butt;922505 wrote: So the poor are not entitled to their own children?

My answer to both of these is no. I was talking about having babies that parents are not able to take care of. If Either of my daughters that have kids that they just couldn't raise, my hubby and I would be the first to take them...and we are both on disability, but we'd make it work.

Yes the poor should be able to have their own children, but I see so many people that are able bodies and living off of the government...my 20yr old and her boyfriend included. A lot of them have lots of kids, live in the projects, and drive really nice vehicles. We live pretty close to Chicago which is one of the top welfare areas...it just seems to have spread to our city.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:17 pm

shelbell;924597 wrote: Wow Accountable, you just described my20yr old daughter and her boyfriend to a T. They have one baby and another on the way. They live with his mother and they depend completely on welfare and WIC....they are both able bodies yet refuse to try to make it on their own.:-5
I'd probably blame his mom.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:58 pm

fuzzy butt;924765 wrote: this forum is amazing me at the moment . People seem to have a problem with families on "welfare" then there is an "abortion thread" and another on whether people "spend enough time with their kids" .................................Make up your minds for gods sake!!!!!!!!!

Well hell, you just got done saying no one was allowed to be human anymore- make up your mind!!!

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 5:54 pm

fuzzy butt;924765 wrote: this forum is amazing me at the moment . People seem to have a problem with families on "welfare" then there is an "abortion thread" and another on whether people "spend enough time with their kids" .................................Make up your minds for gods sake!!!!!!!!!
Mine's made up. Yours?

southern yankee · Post by **southern yankee** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 7:04 pm

things do go wrong:-1. you think you have the perfect marriage, then it happens. divorce or he just takes off. that was me 24 years ago. i thank God i had food stamps and asst, but it was only for about 3 years. not a life time. i did get on my feet again. but i am greatful for the help.

shelbell · Post by **shelbell** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 1:18 am

Accountable;924720 wrote: I'd probably blame his mom.

His mom is definitely a big part of the problem. She buys booze for them and lets them have parties in her basement...most of these kids are under 21. She does it so they "don't out and use and get in trouble.

This same daughter with her 1yr old son is staying at our house tonight because someone shot up her house last night. I'm sure it's gang related because her "Mr. wonderful, can't live without him, he only beats her up every once in awhile" is in a gang...and of course he's in jail right now for assult on someone else. He spends more time in there than out, which is a really good thing.:-5:-5

Post by **spot** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 1:35 am

I just streamed some video off a cassette I filmed back in the mid-eighties, to put some of the clips onto a DVD for one of the people I'd filmed. There are children in those clips who'd not have been born if the world were run the way half the people posting in this thread would prefer. It's disheartening that so little theory can wipe out so much reality. I'm sure people mean what they say but their comments are entirely destructive.

shelbell · Post by **shelbell** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 1:45 am

spot;925103 wrote: I just streamed some video off a cassette I filmed back in the mid-eighties, to put some of the clips onto a DVD for one of the people I'd filmed. There are children in those clips who'd not have been born if the world were run the way half the people posting in this thread would prefer. It's disheartening that so little theory can wipe out so much reality. I'm sure people mean what they say but their comments are entirely destructive.

Very well said.

pantsonfire321@aol.com · Tue Jul 22, 2008 2:37 am

RedGlitter;923253 wrote: And then again there's no sense ignoring the fact that it's true.

Here in the States I know people who admit having more kids so they can get that extra $350 a month and all the help from WIC (women-infant care) and AHCCCS (arizona health care cost containment system) They actually think that money is going to carry them. And no, these specific people are not assets nor raising assets to society. Not because they're poor. Because they're stupid.

And this is my point .

I see it all the time people having kids and having no intention of ever working . I bumped into someone i went to school with not long ago and when i asked her how she was doing she told me her hubby/ live in boyfriend is a plumber and they have six kids yet she still claims to be a single parent so she can collect benefits . When i asked her why she does this she said because the money was so good :-5.

Again i'm only talking about the deliberatly lazy and idle who prefer to sit on their back sides rather than do an honest days work . When did respect for honest decent hard working people go out of the window .

Post by **spot** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 3:15 am

pantsonfire321@aol.com;925151 wrote: When did respect for honest decent hard working people go out of the window .When the State became the enemy instead of the servant. Destroying the State is the fundamental obligation of every citizen once it behaves the way this one does. These things were recognized when America fought its War of Independence, the comparative subservience of the modern-day weak-minded drone is an affront to all civilized values. Stop working and organize, the revolution's coming.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 6:48 am

When someone takes unfair advantage of a situation, does it automatically necessitate legal action? Must there be a new law every time somebody gets one over on us? Why is the state the end-all be-all? Simply pointing out an injustice is not a call for legislation, it is peer pressure. The whole problem is that we've somehow become convinced that gov't should serve us in every capacity.

We need less gov't not more. If someone in the neighborhood is cheating the system but staying within the law, do like in the old days. Ostracise, gossip, embarass, ... there are dozens of options to get people to change their behavior without making new laws.