draw welfare, be on birth control

[Bob Hubbard]

On the surface, it makes sense. The retarded kid in the group home? fix her. The criminal? Fix him. The welfare mom with 2 kids? Fix her.

Where's the line though? Do we do like the Chinese did, mandate -2- kids per family, outlaw girls, force abortions when they go to far, take the kids at birth and put them in homes, etc? It just gets too dicey.

I think the key is to remove the incentive to go on the dole. Make it a stigma again. Hire enough case workers to really investigate the fraud and abuses, and punish them severely. Stop letting them spend the money on luxury items. You need a car, not a Caddy. You need a phone, not a cell phone with built in Ipod and unlimited texting. You need a tv, not a 52" plasma.

Limit what it's spendable on. Basics, not "luxuries". Generics, store brands, no names, etc. Not name brand, luxury, or top shelf.

Set up a food distribution center, make it only good there.
Don't like it? McDonalds -is- hiring. Burger King -is- hiring.

There are families where they know if they add another mouth, they get X$ more.
So they add it. Even when it doesn't exist. Enough already.

You want the government to take care of you, in your hour of need, fine. But all you get is basic needs. You want more, you do what the rest of us do. Earn it, or you do without. This entitlement attitudes a fracking joke.

Set up a community center where all the welfare kids can go, while mommy and daddy work to earn their govmt money. They can pick up trash off the streets, shovel sidewalks, cut grass in empty lots, clean grafitti off things, scoop doggie doo, anything, to earn that money.

Oh, and don't tell me that's demeaning work. I've sorted garbage, cleaned grease traps, done 3 stints in fast food, cut grass, shoveled walks, etc. when I needed the cash -that bad-.

I disagree on sterilizing welfare recipients, but I also disagree on the free money period.
Make em work for it.

 

[Phoenix44]

I work in some of the poorest slums of NYC. In fact, I once worked in "teen family planning" clinic--what a concept! I want to point out that people have babies they can't afford for all different kinds of reasons, not just for the purpose of increasing their welfare check--which doesn't necessarily make them financially better off anyway.

Ignorance, the need for something to love, the need for something to control, religion (I personally don't understand why unmarried sex is OK while birth control isn't, but that's just me), the need to escape from an abusive parent (emancipated minor), the need to show how manly you are, perceived lack of options, mental illness, or just because it's the norm in that neighborhood.

Simply cutting off welfare checks will not solve the problem, BELIEVE me.

 

[shesulsa]

On the surface, it makes sense. The retarded kid in the group home? fix her. The criminal? Fix him. The welfare mom with 2 kids? Fix her.

Where's the line though? Do we do like the Chinese did, mandate -2- kids per family, outlaw girls, force abortions when they go to far, take the kids at birth and put them in homes, etc? It just gets too dicey.

The line is where the federal government gets to control your reproductive choices. It must lie somewhere.

I think the key is to remove the incentive to go on the dole. Make it a stigma again. Hire enough case workers to really investigate the fraud and abuses, and punish them severely. Stop letting them spend the money on luxury items. You need a car, not a Caddy. You need a phone, not a cell phone with built in Ipod and unlimited texting. You need a tv, not a 52" plasma.

We're going to recycle some of my past arguments now. I know a welfare family or two. They have a few televisions, DVD players, some kewl kitchen gadgets, etcetera. I don't think they have a plasma TV. They did have a Caddy ... a 20 year old caddy. Driven one lately? Have you ... maintained one lately? They have a tendency to get fatal diseases from flat tires, they do; delicate cars and NOT worth the damn money, hence ... used, they come cheap. The televisions? DVD players? Donated.

I always find it interesting to read or hear people say this stuff ... have you ACTUALLY WALKED INTO a welfare home anytime lately YOURSELF? Because I can tell you ... the ones who are getting the plasma TVs, the Escalades and wearing FUBU have an additional source of income, friend, and it's not slight. They are either involved in organized crime or get a stipend because they are immigrants. THAT'S a different discussion.

Limit what it's spendable on. Basics, not "luxuries". Generics, store brands, no names, etc. Not name brand, luxury, or top shelf.

Again ... while the food I've eaten at my friend's house is yummy, it is carb-ridden, sodium-saturated and fatty. It also happens to be ... cheap.

Set up a food distribution center, make it only good there.
Don't like it? McDonalds -is- hiring. Burger King -is- hiring.

The food distribution centers exist - but they run out before everyone can get enough that really helps. The food banks? Empty.

There are families where they know if they add another mouth, they get X$ more.
So they add it. Even when it doesn't exist. Enough already.

While that's true in a smaller percentage of cases, it isn't the biggest problem with welfare by a long shot.

Set up a community center where all the welfare kids can go, while mommy and daddy work to earn their govmt money.

Nice idea. Who's gonna pay for it? The community? What's the difference? Who's going to regulate it? Do you know how well the gov't looks after children? Go find out, you might be amazed.

They can pick up trash off the streets, shovel sidewalks, cut grass in empty lots, clean grafitti off things, scoop doggie doo, anything, to earn that money.

That's what prisoners do. But I can see the possibilities you're alluding to and it could hold promise. Problem is, regulation and proper oversight is *never* maintained by this government.

Oh, and don't tell me that's demeaning work. I've sorted garbage, cleaned grease traps, done 3 stints in fast food, cut grass, shoveled walks, etc. when I needed the cash -that bad-.

The only demeaning work is the selling of one's self or one's soul.

I disagree on sterilizing welfare recipients, but I also disagree on the free money period. Make em work for it.

Some kind of labor for trade would be an excellent idea.

I work in some of the poorest slums of NYC. In fact, I once worked in "teen family planning" clinic--what a concept! I want to point out that people have babies they can't afford for all different kinds of reasons, not just for the purpose of increasing their welfare check--which doesn't necessarily make them financially better off anyway.

Ignorance, the need for something to love, the need for something to control, religion (I personally don't understand why unmarried sex is OK while birth control isn't, but that's just me), the need to escape from an abusive parent (emancipated minor), the need to show how manly you are, perceived lack of options, mental illness, or just because it's the norm in that neighborhood.

Simply cutting off welfare checks will not solve the problem, BELIEVE me.

You beat me to it. :asian:

 

[arnisador]

Hire enough case workers

$$$$

Stop letting them spend the money on luxury items.

Enforcement--$$$$

Limit what it's spendable on.

Enforcement--$$$$

Set up a food distribution center

$$$$

Set up a community center where all the welfare kids can go

$$$$

They can pick up trash off the streets, shovel sidewalks, cut grass in empty lots, clean grafitti off things, scoop doggie doo, anything

Supervision--$$$$

Make em work for it.

Supervison--$$$$

 

[MJS]

The line is where the federal government gets to control your reproductive choices. It must lie somewhere.

IMO, someone should do something, and if it means the govt. controlling something, then so be it. Why do I, or anyone else have to be responsible to pay for someone that abuses the system?

We're going to recycle some of my past arguments now. I know a welfare family or two. They have a few televisions, DVD players, some kewl kitchen gadgets, etcetera. I don't think they have a plasma TV. They did have a Caddy ... a 20 year old caddy. Driven one lately? Have you ... maintained one lately? They have a tendency to get fatal diseases from flat tires, they do; delicate cars and NOT worth the damn money, hence ... used, they come cheap. The televisions? DVD players? Donated.

I don't know if I'd go so far as to say everything is donated. My wife worked PT a few years ago at WalMart for some holiday cash. She was amazed at the number of people who'd come thru the line and use food stamps, while there was a wad of cash.

I always find it interesting to read or hear people say this stuff ... have you ACTUALLY WALKED INTO a welfare home anytime lately YOURSELF? Because I can tell you ... the ones who are getting the plasma TVs, the Escalades and wearing FUBU have an additional source of income, friend, and it's not slight. They are either involved in organized crime or get a stipend because they are immigrants. THAT'S a different discussion.

Those are the ones bilking the system. You're on welfare and you have a plasma? Wear designer clothing? I doubt McDonalds is giving them that much to go out and buy the luxury items. Extra income...possibly, then what the state provides should be cut.

Again ... while the food I've eaten at my friend's house is yummy, it is carb-ridden, sodium-saturated and fatty. It also happens to be ... cheap.

What did it consist of, if you don't mind me asking?

That's what prisoners do. But I can see the possibilities you're alluding to and it could hold promise. Problem is, regulation and proper oversight is *never* maintained by this government.

Actually, its community service...its giving something back. You don't have to be an inmate to do something nice for the town/city you live in.

The only demeaning work is the selling of one's self or one's soul.

I don't think doing the things Bob suggested are demeaning.

Some kind of labor for trade would be an excellent idea.

Me too.

 

[MJS]

$$$$

Enforcement--$$$$

Enforcement--$$$$

$$$$

$$$$

Supervision--$$$$


Supervison--$$$$

Yes, unfortunately, many of these things to cost alot of $$$. If theres no $$$ to fund it, something tells me that someone isn't handling the $$ too good.

 

[Drac]

Set up a community center where all the welfare kids can go, while mommy and daddy work to earn their govmt money. They can pick up trash off the streets, shovel sidewalks, cut grass in empty lots, clean grafitti off things, scoop doggie doo, anything, to earn that money.

and take time away from hanging out with their homies, surley you jest...They tried that up here and the attitude of some of them at actually having to worked offended them down to their core..

I've sorted garbage, cleaned grease traps, done 3 stints in fast food, cut grass, shoveled walks, etc. when I needed the cash -that bad-

You and I both Bob...

 

[shesulsa]

IMO, someone should do something, and if it means the govt. controlling something, then so be it. Why do I, or anyone else have to be responsible to pay for someone that abuses the system?

The way we're set up here, with The New Deal, is that with us all responsible for each other, we can all prosper - crime is reduced, general health is up, starvation death is down, consumerism is up, etc.

I don't know if I'd go so far as to say everything is donated. My wife worked PT a few years ago at WalMart for some holiday cash. She was amazed at the number of people who'd come thru the line and use food stamps, while there was a wad of cash.

Not everything IS donated - some folks on welfare babysit under the table, clean houses, etcetera because welfare is really not enough, believe it or not. Seen Craig's List? Goodwill?

Those are the ones bilking the system. You're on welfare and you have a plasma? Wear designer clothing? I doubt McDonalds is giving them that much to go out and buy the luxury items. Extra income...possibly, then what the state provides should be cut.

I was obviously not clear ... these folks are likely involved with organized crime or other illegal profiteering with the immigration stipend. The plasma was likely stolen or bought on the black market. If they bought if from a store, then I would suspect the funding source.

What did it consist of, if you don't mind me asking?

Ground pork, Pasta-roni, canned corn and rolls - all bought with coupons and on sale - I know because i used to help them shop.

Actually, its community service...its giving something back. You don't have to be an inmate to do something nice for the town/city you live in.

My point was that there is a large pool of people who could do some kind of work and aren't. Prisoners should be doing hard labor ... I know a few bridges that could use repair. That would clear the room for work these families could provide.

I don't think doing the things Bob suggested are demeaning.

Nor do I - that's why I explained the things I think that are.

 

[Carol]

Hmm...I'm Catholic and I'm not against birth control. On the other hand, its one thing to have a child and be able to support it. Its another when you have a kid or kids and you need a crutch. IMO, the crutch should be a temporary thing, not a permanent thing, because people feel the need to pump out 10 kids.

Regardless of what Vatican doctrine says...it is quite difficult to find a Roman Catholic under the age of 45 that has a large family.

 

[MJS]

The way we're set up here, with The New Deal, is that with us all responsible for each other, we can all prosper - crime is reduced, general health is up, starvation death is down, consumerism is up, etc.



Not everything IS donated - some folks on welfare babysit under the table, clean houses, etcetera because welfare is really not enough, believe it or not. Seen Craig's List? Goodwill?



I was obviously not clear ... these folks are likely involved with organized crime or other illegal profiteering with the immigration stipend. The plasma was likely stolen or bought on the black market. If they bought if from a store, then I would suspect the funding source.



Ground pork, Pasta-roni, canned corn and rolls - all bought with coupons and on sale - I know because i used to help them shop.



My point was that there is a large pool of people who could do some kind of work and aren't. Prisoners should be doing hard labor ... I know a few bridges that could use repair. That would clear the room for work these families could provide.



Nor do I - that's why I explained the things I think that are.

Ok, thanks for the clarification.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I bought an excellent couch for $28 at a City Mission store. Got the matching chair for $7. I built my bed, and my bookshelves, and my desk with scrapwood and surplus from Home Depot. (They aren't The Ritz, but they do work and look good).
I feed 3 adults and 3 cats on $60 cash a week.
Last night was hamburgers and pasta salad, the night before ham steaks and green beans, the night before that ravioli, the night before that fried chicken, brocoli and potatoes. Tomorrow is Sukiyaki or maybe Beef Bowl. Also on the list is beef stew, chili, shrimp stir fry, soups, and tacos. All made from scratch, fresh veggies, fresh meats, fresh or frozen seafood. I bought a $29 pasta maker, and can knock out killer noodles in a flash, at 1/4 the cost of supermarket brand.
It's called careful budgeting, careful planning, and an willingness to learn how to not burn water.
I also manage to pay the electric, gas, tv and phone bills, while paying 2x what I should in child support (due to a system that sucks, hense why I won't get into that argument, lest a judge see my comments and do me more damage out of spite.)

Now, where will they get the money to fund all the kiddie care centers, hiring of supervisors, etc?
From the money they will -save- as they eliminate the 60% fraud in the system.
Fraud like letting others use their benni cards, "borrowing" some extra kids for extra checks, "forgetting" to report that certain family members have moved, married, or died. Etc.

Are honest folks in the system? Yup. Lots of em. But if you eliminate the fraud, and make it hard to scam the system, maybe the folks who really really need it, can get more than a pitance, and those who don't can get a fricken clue.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

I can't agree with forced sterilization policy, as much as I might want to though.

I can.

My parents were married with one child when I was born, though I wasn't planned.

I was born 6 weeks early, and required a respirator as my lungs hadn't developed to where they could function on their own.

I died--I stopped breathing on my own.

The morally correct thing for my parents and the doctors to do at that point would have been to let me pass in peace.

But they didn't do that because they "had to save me".

I still bear scars on my body now, from when they cut me open in my ribs and head to stick tubes in for oxygenated blood to make me function. I am impaired in my vision and hearing as a direct result of this choice to defy fate, AND inherited genetic predispositions to high blood pressure, heart disease and diabetes which I had to begin watching for before I was even out of my damn twenties.

But there you have it--They defied nature's will, they got what they wanted, and now *I* must pay for it the rest of MY life.

There have been those whom I have encountered who have held the view that none of that matters, because "I have the precious gift of life". To them I loudly suggest self fornication by means of a soldering iron.

Whether or not my life is "hell" or there's someone whose life is "worse" or whether this life is "worth it" are neither here nor there. I will leave philosophy to the philosophers and theology to the theologians. The point is I would have LOVED to have gotten to live without my mutlilevelled genetic curse if the chance had been available, and if *I* actually DID have TWO parents, who actually DID give a **** about me growing up and I still have this to contend with.....in what possible alternate universe could anyone possibly think a welfare kid has a shot.

Whether or not I would, in hindsight, have chosen oblivion over my current existence--I would have. Knowing what was to come, and how it would affect the things I wanted to do in life, I would have. But that choice was not mine, and I am here, and my self preservation instincts are too strong to allow me to self terminate, so I try to do the best I can to be a decent guy until my time comes.

It's time to quit this myth of childbirth being a "right".


Let the tube-snipping of BOTH sexes begin.

 

[Gordon Nore]

i was thinking a bit about this woman who pumped out a gazillion kids that she can't afford. now i don't think we need to go overboard here, having forced abortions or birth permits (although i'm willing to discuss birth permits on another thread), but if you're drawing state support you shouldn't just keep cranking out young'uns, either. i also don't think that welfare should be abolished, as some people truely do need it, & i would rather see the system abused by some than see help denied those who need it.

Respects to jarrod,

The OP invites a discussion of birth control for women on welfare, but is inspired by the story of the 'Octomom's' eight newborn children from no less than six implantations, in addition to the six children she already had.

Google.ca yields 630,000 results for octomom. (0.10 seconds)

{inhale}
I think direction of the thread discussion -- about women on welfare, presumably raising children on their own -- is heavily coloured by the extraordinary exploits of Nadya Suleman. Everything that can go wrong has gone wrong in this sad little tale. Not only does Ms Suleman have a publicist, which adds to the visceral anger over her behaviour, she also has no visible allies anywhere. My point is, as regards Suleman, there is no 'other side' to the discussion. Conservatives, liberals, leftists, believers, non-believers -- overwhelmingly, people are upset, if not enraged, by these events.
{exhale}

My point, respectfully, is that Nadya Suleman, whatever her machinations, is not the face of poor women in America or any place I can think of on earth.

 

[arnisador]

I'm all in favour of putting people who are on welfare to work on public projects--provide child care if necessary and use it to provide a motivation for them to get a better job.

But that's a lot of overhead--finding them all jobs (harder than you might think) and assigning people to them (no criminals in schools), supervising the people, welfare worker's comp., vetting claims that a person is too disabled to do (certain types of) work, child care issues, etc.

 

[Deaf Smith]

I wonder if the California CPS (Child Protective Services) can take her children on the gounds that she put them all in danger by having that doctor do IVF for so many. It was known to be unsafe.

If I was to get eight children, put them in a van, and go speeding at 90 miles an hour I'd be arrested for putting them in danger.

She did no less.

Deaf

 

[Gordon Nore]

But that's a lot of overhead--finding them all jobs (harder than you might think) and assigning people to them (no criminals in schools), supervising the people, welfare worker's comp., vetting claims that a person is too disabled to do (certain types of) work, child care issues, etc.

Arnisador,

What you hear is the sound of the hammer hitting the nail on its head.

Vast 'workfare' projects require more government. A program of preventing pregnancy among women on welfare is more government. Lots and lots more of it. Ironic -- I think. Generally, I believe that people who want less or no welfare also want much less government.

My own opposition to workfare and to controlling people's reproduction is rooted in other concerns.

 

[jarrod]

My own opposition to workfare and to controlling people's reproduction is rooted in other concerns.

i just quoted this statement in order to discuss a difference of ideas: is there a difference between controlling reproduction & controlling government spending? the idea i threw out there differs from eugenics in that the idea is not to prevent certain "types" from breeding, but to my mind just places a reasonable limit on welfare abuses. if you are on welfare & want kids, great, you are free to have more kids. but kids are not a right that the government has to provide for you. YOU are obligated to provide for your kids. i'm not at all opposed to social programs, but the type of abuse we're discussing here isn't just a matter of wasteful spending (it's a miniscule amount from the federal budget, less than 1% even) but a matter of the progressive erosion of personal accountability in our society. people shouldn't have to pay for a single mistake for their whole lives, but there has to be consequences for mistakes or we will not learn from them.

i don't have a credit card because i learned through the consequences of my actions that i can't handle one. i show up to my job & do well because if i don't i may get fired. & if you can't afford to support your family without public aid, there need to be direct consequences for having more children that you can't care for. yes there are the issues of government involvement & humanitarian obligations to children or other helpless individuals. but to me it all comes to encouraging people as a whole to take responsibility for their actions.

jf

 

[Cryozombie]

I have 2 solutions.

1) We build a power plant. Power it by tredmill. Put the welfare moms and dads to work powering the plant by manual labor. Nothing crazy, no weird forced work shifts, plenty of break times, provide them Insurance, Pay, and daycare, also provided by welfare moms and dads... now suddenly unskilled workers have jobs, and we have "clean" energy. The people who can't walk the walk, can have janitorial/maintenence jobs, or work in the cafeteria, or the day care, etc...

2) Set a fixed amount. Don't regulate how many childrens someone can have, but don't pay them extra to have more. Then, if they cannot support their kids, do what we already do to families who are neglecting to support their children.

I like solution 1 better.

 

[elder999]

the idea i threw out there differs from eugenics in that the idea is not to prevent certain "types" from breeding, but to my mind just places a reasonable limit on welfare abuses.

Just playing devil's advocate here, but, in light of the current threads on racism, I should point out that many would say that limiting the breeding of those on welfare would be tatamount to limiting the breeding of certain
"types."

 

[Cryozombie]

Just playing devil's advocate here, but, in light of the current threads on racism, I should point out that many would say that limiting the breeding of those on welfare would be tatamount to limiting the breeding of certain
"types."

However it could be said back to those same people that they themselves are racist, assuming only certain "types" use welfare.

Its all a double edged sword.