General Discussion Undecided where to post - do it here. |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
![]() |
#1 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
|
The idea is that he still needs some money to live on but he's only making, officially anyway, $8.50 per hour and probably isn't even working full time. More than likely he is keeping a part time job so he is officially paying something (though only something like $1.50 per kid per month) while his "real" job is probably something illegal and under the table so the government can't take his money.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
|
The first thing that needs to happen is removing the incentive to have more kids in order to get more welfare. Do what Texas does and cap it at 2-3 kids after which if you have more kids you don't get more welfare. Yes, that will mean less per kid making life difficult but it should be enough for them to survive and if not then the kids could always be taken by child protective services if their mother (I won't even pretend the father is involved with them) doesn't take care of them. It's a crappy situation but they put themselves in that position deliberately to try to work the welfare system. The abuse needs to stop. ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
|
The first thing that needs to happen is removing the incentive to have more kids in order to get more welfare. Do what Texas does and cap it at 2-3 kids after which if you have more kids you don't get more welfare. Yes, that will mean less per kid making life difficult but it should be enough for them to survive and if not then the kids could always be taken by child protective services if their mother (I won't even pretend the father is involved with them) doesn't take care of them. It's a crappy situation but they put themselves in that position deliberately to try to work the welfare system. The abuse needs to stop. ![]() You sound like a Republican. Maybe HC hacked your account. |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
|
They're not living large but if you're on welfare it's the only way to get more money out of the welfare system. Yes, there is a lot of abuse built into the system. Free birth control in the form of something which is not optional (like a depro shot for women and a male equivalent if possible) should be mandatory for all welfare recipients. Further more there must, I mean must, be a cap on how much a single person can get no matter how many children they have. Also if you have more kids while on welfare you should get nothing additional since you knew the rules going in. The TANF families averaged 2 recipient children, which is consistent with the data from recent years. Three in every four families had only one or two children. Seventy percent of families had only one adult recipient (single family head of household), and 7 percent included two or more adult recipients. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/...ess/tanfp7.htm As you can clearly see families on welfare are not having an extraordinary number of children. |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
|
Welfare reform. The New Jersey findings are consistent with a parallel pre-post analysis and suggest the state’s policies reduced births by 9-12 percent but also increased abortions among new applicants by 14 percent. That would make sense. If a woman simply can't afford to raise another child she might have it aborted even though she would rather not. Basically what Oerdin proposed in post #29. So it is possible that welfare can influence fertility, although I'm a bit surprised that people want to change policy in a way that encourages more abortions. |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
|
It wouldn't take long to add more examples, but it unnecessary and wouldn't convince you anyway. If I put 10 examples would that make a difference? 50? 100? 1000? |
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 guests) | |
|