Welfare should not pay moms for having more babies

TheRoadDog
TheRoadDog Posts: 11,788 Member
edited April 2015 in Chit-Chat
If you choose to have more children after signing onto welfare, that choice is on you. Taxpayers will not be forced to be financially responsible.

Replies

  • SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage
    SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage Posts: 2,668 Member
    Well unfortunately, yes you will because you can't opt out of paying for it. Hooray for taxes.
  • free1220
    free1220 Posts: 416 Member
    TheRoadDog wrote: »
    If you choose to have more children after signing onto welfare, that choice is on you. Taxpayers will not be forced to be financially responsible.

    "LIKE"
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    To play devil's advocate, if said child is born, do you just assume it shouldn't be fed at all? The infant should be punished for the parent's irresponsibility?
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • TheRoadDog
    TheRoadDog Posts: 11,788 Member
    Hornsby wrote: »
    To play devil's advocate, if said child is born, do you just assume it shouldn't be fed at all? The infant should be punished for the parent's irresponsibility?

    No. The child should not be punished. That's the problem. It's unfair and that's how these people work the system. There should be a line drawn somewhere though.

    Taxpayers shouldn't be forced to be financially responsible for their own families in addition to families who have never paid into the system.

  • SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage
    SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage Posts: 2,668 Member
    TheRoadDog wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    To play devil's advocate, if said child is born, do you just assume it shouldn't be fed at all? The infant should be punished for the parent's irresponsibility?

    No. The child should not be punished. That's the problem. It's unfair and that's how these people work the system. There should be a line drawn somewhere though.

    Taxpayers shouldn't be forced to be financially responsible for their own families in addition to families who have never paid into the system.
    It's a valid point, but what's the alternative?
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    TheRoadDog wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    To play devil's advocate, if said child is born, do you just assume it shouldn't be fed at all? The infant should be punished for the parent's irresponsibility?

    No. The child should not be punished. That's the problem. It's unfair and that's how these people work the system. There should be a line drawn somewhere though.

    Taxpayers shouldn't be forced to be financially responsible for their own families in addition to families who have never paid into the system.

    Agreed, and I think 99% of Americans from whatever political stance would agree that there needs to be a change. The hard part is determining how to change it without impacting the children who make up 53% of the "welfare recipients".

  • dpwellman
    dpwellman Posts: 3,271 Member
    Every subsidy is "welfare" is it not? Heck, even a tax rate cut is counted as an "expenditure". Hulk SMASH!

    In before the lock? :D
  • efink85
    efink85 Posts: 19 Member
    California has a policy that caps or reduces benefits to women who give birth to additional children while already on public assistance, there is currently a legal fight to end the cap, so TheRoadDog's concerns are valid.
  • IndigoSpider
    IndigoSpider Posts: 37 Member
    Here's a thought: How about making the baby daddies responsible for all the babies they father instead of taxpayers and leaving it solely on the mom.
  • SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage
    SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage Posts: 2,668 Member
    IndigoSpider wrote: »
    Here's a thought: How about making the baby daddies responsible for all the babies they father instead of taxpayers and leaving it solely on the mom.
    I like you

  • TheRoadDog
    TheRoadDog Posts: 11,788 Member
    BinkyBonk wrote: »
    TheRoadDog wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    To play devil's advocate, if said child is born, do you just assume it shouldn't be fed at all? The infant should be punished for the parent's irresponsibility?

    No. The child should not be punished. That's the problem. It's unfair and that's how these people work the system. There should be a line drawn somewhere though.

    Taxpayers shouldn't be forced to be financially responsible for their own families in addition to families who have never paid into the system.
    It's a valid point, but what's the alternative?

    Not sure there is an alternative. We will likely provide hand outs until we are unable to and the economy collapses.

  • TheRoadDog
    TheRoadDog Posts: 11,788 Member
    IndigoSpider wrote: »
    Here's a thought: How about making the baby daddies responsible for all the babies they father instead of taxpayers and leaving it solely on the mom.

    Maury Povich needs a job too.

  • kinkyslinky16
    kinkyslinky16 Posts: 1,469 Member
    dpwellman wrote: »
    Every subsidy is "welfare" is it not? Heck, even a tax rate cut is counted as an "expenditure". Hulk SMASH!

    In before the lock? :D

    :p Yes, and the oil companies/corporations are our biggest welfare recipient.... yet, let's be pissed off at MOMS!!!!!!!!!
  • kgeyser
    kgeyser Posts: 22,505 Member
    86fd56844eb23bb43586758537913f2de4aa3c6c66fd838667ce522b3cfcaa7e.jpg

    Wow, this got reported fast.

    15. Divisive Topics Are Better Suited For Groups, Not the Main Forums

    Divisive topics and posts, particularly those that seek input from or are relevant only to a select group of users, are better placed within an appropriate Group rather than the Main Forums. For example, topics relevant to only one religion should not be placed on the main forums but rather within a group related to that religion.

    16. No Political Topics in the Main Forums

    Political content is not allowed on the Main Forums. This includes images. Please form or join a Group if you would like to engage in political debate on MyFitnessPal.

This discussion has been closed.

Categories