Priority Teaching Jobs








Forum: Arts / Debates

Page:
Page 1 of 21 2
Debates
The need to breed, should people on gov. assistance continue to have kids? en>fr fr>en
By aerial Comments: 1146, member since Sun Sep 02, 2001
On Sat Nov 23, 2013 08:39 AM

I am seriously asking for peoples thoughts and debate points because I am curious is my own thoughts are skewed. I have several friends/relatives that recently got pregnant or have had a baby that required government assistance to do so for medical costs/food costs/housing issues. Some were unplanned but were not protected against and some were planned.

Most of of these ladies are already planning another child, some actively trying to get pregnant while still using full assistance.

My question is although it is their right to do as they choose. Is it alright is peoples eyes that they have more kids? Should they receive full benifits for the next pregnancy?

47 Replies to The need to breed, should people on gov. assistance continue to have kids?

re: The need to breed, should people on gov. assistance continue to have kids? en>fr fr>en
By MuffinHeadmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member Comments: 5167, member since Thu Jun 10, 2004
On Sat Nov 23, 2013 09:08 AM
It depends. I know a few people that are on government assistance because they have a legitimate disability-- whether it be physical or psychological. I have friends who are on government assistance because they once had a great job, and they were laid off-- and they needed help to pay their bills.

If you are on disability-- and you have a child... fine. Let the government help you. (Although, if it's serious enough to require disability... how will you be able to care for a child if you cannot hold down a job?)

If you are on government assistance because you lost your job, it would probably be smart to wait to have a child until you're back on your feet. If you already have children and you're in this position-- absolutely get the help you need to continue caring for your child.

But I don't believe those are the people we are talking about. I feel as though you're asking about able bodied people who are "mooching" off the system. (Please, correct me if I'm wrong.)

I don't want children, but let's get hypothetical here. If I did have children-- there are certain things I want for them.

I don't want to raise them in government assisted housing. I'm not sure how it is in anyone else's area, but in my area-- I don't even want to DRIVE BY the government assisted housing. I actually lock my car doors when I do. There are gang members, drug dealers, and all sorts of other colorful people I don't want my children exposed to. I don't want to be forced to send my children to a public school-- I want to give my kids the option of a private education.

And I don't want my kids to want.
"Mom, I wanna join dance." "We can't afford it."
"Mom, I wanna do baseball." "We can't afford it."
"Mom, I really want an XBox." "We can't afford it."

I'll fully admit I was a spoiled brat growing up. I got everything I wanted, barring some quite ridiculous requests. I wanted to be a dancer... so my parents shelled out hundreds of dollars a month on classes, costumes, shoes, leotards, tights, etc. And now that I'm a working adult-- I'm a dance teacher.. and I'm thankful to my parents for being able to give me that opportunity.


I used to work in a supermarket, and we had a lot of women come in on food stamps or WIC with their children. And MOST of them-- were absolutely wonderful people. With WIC, you have to get certain things-- the store brand whole milk, store brand plain cheerios, store brand formula, etc. And again, most women followed it to a tee, and used their food stamps for food for their children.

But then there were the others. Women would come through on WIC with Hood whole milk, expensive formula, and Trix cereal. No, you get what your paper says.

And then there was the mom with her one year old that bought $300 worth of steak for their Superbowl party on her food stamps.


Moral of the story: If you cannot afford a kid. DO NOT HAVE ONE. There are plenty of options to avoid pregnancy, and options after pregnancy has occurred. It is SELFISH, to have a child under these circumstances. The child will NOT have the life that MOST parents want for their children. You just want to feed your appetite for a living doll, in my opinion.
re: The need to breed, should people on gov. assistance continue to have kids? (karma: 1)  en>fr fr>en
By saaammiemember has saluted, click to view salute photos Comments: 307, member since Thu Apr 01, 2010
On Sat Nov 23, 2013 09:21 AM
Edited by saaammie (221634) on 2013-11-23 09:27:24
The right to procreate is (for good and bad) one of the most basic.
Stopping people from doing that is a VERY slipperly slope. What if someone gets pregnant when they're on government assistance? Should they be forced to give up the child or have an abortion? What about those who already have kids, shall we take them away? Sterilize everybody on welfare?

As for receiving less assistance, WHY should the child suffer for something the parents have done?

There are plenty of people I think shouldn't have kids, and plenty of people that objectively are bad parents but I (we) can't stop people from having them. The consequences are just too dire, because where does it stop? What if the right-wing extremist party came to power in Sweden and said Muslims weren't allowed to have children. Or that I, as a feminist, can't because the children would be "raised wrong"? Or that poor people can't have kids...?

If we say a person has full rights as a human ,we cannot ever take away their rights to their own bodies.
re: The need to breed, should people on gov. assistance continue to have kids? (karma: 1)  en>fr fr>en
By Dancing_EMTmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member Comments: 3339, member since Wed Dec 08, 2004
On Sat Nov 23, 2013 10:33 AM
I've always wondered what would happen if we didn't have the "safety net". Would people still be irresponsible?

Should they receive full benifits for the next pregnancy?


In a perfect world, no. If you get laid off and need help, ok. It happens. But, they'll only pay for kids who are already here/you're pregnant with at the time of application. Don't continue to pop out a litter and expect more help.

Or, we do away with govt welfare and leave it to the churches. Make them put their money where their mouth is.

We'll never stop people from having sex, but do away with this "abstinence until marriage" BS. It's unrealistic and stupid. Instead, teach responsible choices. Such as wrapping it up unless you're ready for a kid. Accidents happen, so teach about what to do in an event of an accident.

Welfare/assistance used to be something to be embarrassed about. When did that change? Why would you be PROUD of being unable to provide for your kids?
re: The need to breed, should people on gov. assistance continue to have kids? en>fr fr>en
By imadanseurPremium member Comments: 16203, member since Thu Dec 04, 2003
On Sat Nov 23, 2013 10:47 AM
My husband's best friend is the CEO and a psychologist for a center that helps kids with a variety of developmental issues and special needs. Many come from VERY low income families and he knows women that purposely get pregnant so they can go on welfare and milk the system so they don't have to work, and then they plan to have another eventually to do the same, and sometimes hook up with a guy so they don't have to pay rent etc. Obviously that drives all tax payers crazy, but I am against the government sticking their nose in ANY reproductive rights...birth control, sterilization, abortion, and limiting number of kids. I don't like any government to have that much power!!!
re: The need to breed, should people on gov. assistance continue to have kids? en>fr fr>en
By RifleBuddy Comments: 288, member since Tue Aug 26, 2003
On Sat Nov 23, 2013 11:03 AM
People fall on hard times and sometimes need the safety net of assistance. There's no shame in that and that's what it's there for. But I think that people need to be responsible as well. If you're having trouble taking care of the family you have, why, in good conscience, would you want to add another person in?
re: The need to breed, should people on gov. assistance continue to have kids? en>fr fr>en
By Louisemember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member Comments: 17046, member since Thu Jun 06, 2002
On Sat Nov 23, 2013 11:12 AM
I don't think this question an ever be resolved because no, of course we shouldn't allow people to go through life never intending to work and of course these people aren't fit to raise children anyway because it just becomes an endless cycle. If your parent never worked, but still had money to get pissed and smoke, why would you work?

But equally, if you take the benefits away from the parent then you punish the child. The child goes hungry, wears tatty clothes, is bullied at school for being a 'tramp'. If you take a adults benefit away then they have the optionto work- if they don't take that option, the child is stuck. They don't have the option to work. They're a victim of their parents' choices from the get go.

Essentially you can't punish the parent for being s scumbag without punishing the child,who's done nothing except have the misfortune to be born to a scumbag. That's why this issue will never be resolved. I can't think of any way that someone could justify condemning a child to poverty.
re: The need to breed, should people on gov. assistance continue to have kids? en>fr fr>en
By Naivohwmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member Comments: 1688, member since Mon Nov 17, 2003
On Sat Nov 23, 2013 11:49 AM
My husband and I are pretty broke right now, and we have been for awhile. The only real government assistance we get is a paltry bit of food money. However, I've pondered what would happen if I got pregnant now. For the state I live in: We'd get a ton more money for food, WIC, all the pregnancy and birth expenses covered, free tuition for me if I want to go back to college, plus obviously a bigger tax return for having a kid, and probably help with rent. BUT, that's not the life I want for my kid. I was raised middle class, and I want to give my kid that same experience, so my husband and I are muddling along until he can get a good job. So I really see the temptation people face if they are in a bad situation. It's going to backfire on them once those money-making toddlers are in high school and the money is long gone, but that is their decision.

You can't take away someone's right to children (unfortunately, in many situations) and on the whole people won't want to condemn kids to starvation when it wasn't their fault. I think the only thing that could be done is try to make sure all benefits help the kids only and not the parents. Like WIC, it's pretty bare-bones and you can't get any "fancy" foods. Lawmakers could restrict EBT (food stamps) some, to say no soda or whatever, but that opens up a whole other debate about the government telling people what they can and can't eat. It's tricky, and I don't see it getting resolved any time soon.
re: The need to breed, should people on gov. assistance continue to have kids? (karma: 1)  en>fr fr>en
By kandykanePremium member Comments: 16116, member since Mon May 01, 2006
On Sat Nov 23, 2013 01:49 PM
I really dislike the anecedotal stories of people who cheat the food stamp/welfare system. We all "know someone who...." The real statistic is 1% of welfare is abuse. That's it. 1%. While that still adds up there is far more waste in military funding, bank fraud, corporate welfare, farm subsidies, etc. Poor people should not be targeted. Poor people should be educated. If you get pregnant, certain classes should be required to earn your benefits. Because education is the key here, folks, not punishment. And a woman's maternity benefits should NOT be cut off at one month post partum. That's just asking for a return customer.

kk~
re: The need to breed, should people on gov. assistance continue to have kids? en>fr fr>en
By Louisemember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member Comments: 17046, member since Thu Jun 06, 2002
On Sat Nov 23, 2013 02:05 PM
^ how do they get to that statistic? Because I'd imagine a lot of people who are abusing the system,don't think they're abusing the system. Some people have a excuse for everything. Seems to be they could only be sure someone was a suing the system if they didn't have an excuse - some people produce excuses at a rate of knots.

I also t hinkthatbythe time someone is popping out kids for fun,the HMS Educationhas long sailed.
re: The need to breed, should people on gov. assistance continue to have kids? (karma: 3)  en>fr fr>en
By slice Comments: 1152, member since Fri Oct 15, 2004
On Sat Nov 23, 2013 02:19 PM
kandykane wrote:

I really dislike the anecedotal stories of people who cheat the food stamp/welfare system. We all "know someone who...." The real statistic is 1% of welfare is abuse. That's it. 1%. While that still adds up there is far more waste in military funding, bank fraud, corporate welfare, farm subsidies, etc. Poor people should not be targeted. Poor people should be educated. If you get pregnant, certain classes should be required to earn your benefits. Because education is the key here, folks, not punishment. And a woman's maternity benefits should NOT be cut off at one month post partum. That's just asking for a return customer.

kk~


Everything about this^. The money taken from all of our checks to support corporate subsidies (aka corporate welfare) far outweighs any money going into government assistance programs for individual people and families. I'm more angry at the CEOs maintaining their fat paychecks despite running their corporations to the ground. The overlap between high level government officials and high level businessman in major businesses is maddening. These people have much to gain by keeping the public's attention on families receiving government assistance. If everybody's busy squabbling over whether the victims of a capitalist system should starve or not they'll never notice the people at the top manipulating the system to their best advantage.

I also agree with saaammie's post as well as imadanseur. Any talk of sterilization (which is really the only way a gov't could stop certain people from having children) or even hints at it makes me uncomfortable because the U.S. has a super long, super gross history of eugenics that still happening now. I read stories about Black and Latin@ women, poor women, women in jail, women with disabilities, etc. being sterilized without their knowledge or consent. All because individuals in high and low places think they have a right to determine who should and should not reproduce.
re: The need to breed, should people on gov. assistance continue to have kids? en>fr fr>en
By aerial Comments: 1146, member since Sun Sep 02, 2001
On Sat Nov 23, 2013 02:21 PM
Let me clarify my question a bit. This is not about someone who is disabled. It is not about someone who got pregnant then lost their job. It is about people who cannot afford to take care of a child's basic needs food/clothing/housing getting pregnant on purpose. Also it isn't about if they should be able to have kids or not but rather if they should get assistance especially after already having one and then not being able to ever get off assistance. And no not talking about had one used assistance got a great job got pregnant again then got laid off either.

For some examples. I have one friend who was getting older and wanted to have a baby so she set out to do it. She already knew she was going to use Medicaid to fund the birth and that she will use WIC. Should we pay for her to give birth?

Another friend of mine wanted a baby and again got pregnant on purpose already living with the man and his child that they already were receiving WIC and food stamps for. She had it and now talks about how they receive $1,000 a month in food stamps for her the boyfriend and the 3 year old and WIC for the baby. She routinely buys steak and crab and has great dinners. They also offer a program here that you can get a free house. Like legit 3 bed 2 bath with yard not in a slummy area for free because you are a "single" mom and have kids. It is not a rental but you are given the home. Her and her friends whom also take part in this discuss it on facebook and discuss what a bummer it is that they only got the 3 bed 2 bath and not the 4 bed one they were hoping for.

Anyways going off a bit there. Point is she is already talking about getting pregnant again because she loves being pregnant and the kid is soooo cute etc. Her situation has not changed and will likely not change for some time. So as a community should be really pay for her way to have another baby?

Neither of these women are drug infested slum hood crack folk. They both have a brain in there somewhere and neither would likely get pregnant again if the government wasn't going to fund it. So should we basically encourage these people to have kids by giving such great incentives?

I really am asking because I have to be around these people while they go on and on about all the cool stuff they get and how awesome the free ride is and I have to bite my tongue and I look around and no one else says anything and coos and cuddles the baby and talks about how cute is would be for it to have a sibling. So honestly maybe I thought I was being over judgemental or hateful or rude and wanted to see generally how other feel about these types of situations.
re: The need to breed, should people on gov. assistance continue to have kids? en>fr fr>en
By slice Comments: 1152, member since Fri Oct 15, 2004
On Sat Nov 23, 2013 02:35 PM
Edited by slice (109495) on 2013-11-23 14:36:28
Edited by slice (109495) on 2013-11-23 14:43:07
Well I mean, that does get down to what I said in my post. It's really a decision about whether or not children are going to starve. Because the vast majority of people are not getting steak dinners with their food stamps. People are working multiple jobs, receiving assistance, and still going hungry.

The amount of money funneled into supporting people receiving government is so minute compared to other things funded by our taxes, and the people "abusing" the system are an even tinier percentage of that, that I don't even think it's a question. People who qualify for government assistance should have it.

We can philosophize about responsibility etc. all we want, but in the end we need to consider real material consequences. Either these hypothetical pregnant people get assistance or not. And the latter will have people starving. No other succinct way to put it.

(And as a last note, whenever these conversations come up, the irony never escapes me how the party that's anti-taxes-for-anything-whatsoever (oh, except to support corporations of course!) is also anti-abortion and anti- sex ed. The level of cognitive dissonance there just makes me speechless.)

Edit: Obviously, as far as shouldawouldacoulda, people should abstain from having children if they don't have the means to support a child or an additional child. This includes people who are not on assistance imo who could perhaps support the bare necessities (food/shelter) for a child but nothing that affords a child the kind of stimulation they need over the course of their development.
re: The need to breed, should people on gov. assistance continue to have kids? (karma: 1)  en>fr fr>en
By Dancing_EMTmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member Comments: 3339, member since Wed Dec 08, 2004
On Sat Nov 23, 2013 02:51 PM
Edited by Dancing_EMT (115664) on 2013-11-23 14:55:55
So as a community should be really pay for her way to have another baby?


No.

So should we basically encourage these people to have kids by giving such great incentives?


No. We should give incentives to people who aren't irresponsible.


You can't take away someone's right to children (unfortunately, in many situations) and on the whole people won't want to condemn kids to starvation when it wasn't their fault. I think the only thing that could be done is try to make sure all benefits help the kids only and not the parents. Like WIC, it's pretty bare-bones and you can't get any "fancy" foods. Lawmakers could restrict EBT (food stamps) some, to say no soda or whatever, but that opens up a whole other debate about the government telling people what they can and can't eat. It's tricky, and I don't see it getting resolved any time soon.


I'm all for running food stamps like WIC. You get X amount of proteins a week, so many grains, etc. No boxed meals. Making mac and cheese from scratch is extremely easy. There are "approved" foods and then there aren't. You can choose from "approved" foods that the government will pay for. The government isn't telling you what you can and can't eat, they're telling you what they'll pay for. HUGE difference.

If you complain it's infringing on your "rights", then GET A JOB. If you want your lobster, chips, candy and soda, GET A JOB. The govt doesn't have a "duty" to fund your lifestyle.

If you don't like the rules of taking the money, then don't take it.

I'll be back later tonight, I have to go to work. There's a welfare family counting on me!
re: The need to breed, should people on gov. assistance continue to have kids? en>fr fr>en
By d4jmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member Comments: 12253, member since Fri Aug 27, 2004
On Sat Nov 23, 2013 03:09 PM
If it is really that easy to work the system then the system needs to be fixed.
re: The need to breed, should people on gov. assistance continue to have kids? (karma: 4)  en>fr fr>en
By saaammiemember has saluted, click to view salute photos Comments: 307, member since Thu Apr 01, 2010
On Sat Nov 23, 2013 03:57 PM
Personally, I don't care if a few people abuse the system as long as it helps the rest. I don't wanna live in the world those of you who are against all welfare seem to want. Sorry.
re: The need to breed, should people on gov. assistance continue to have kids? en>fr fr>en
By kandykanePremium member Comments: 16116, member since Mon May 01, 2006
On Sat Nov 23, 2013 05:19 PM
Edited by kandykane (157761) on 2013-11-23 17:21:22
That 1% figure is pretty well documented. Just do a quick google search and you will get plenty of sources.

One more thing - all you who are so worried about welfare/food stamp abuse.... do you get this worked up about people who cheat on their taxes? I am venturing a guess that there are more people who cheat on their taxes than abuse the welfare system. Just a thought....

kk~
re: The need to breed, should people on gov. assistance continue to have kids? (karma: 1)  en>fr fr>en
By Nyssasisticmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member Comments: 3460, member since Sat Sep 20, 2003
On Sat Nov 23, 2013 07:13 PM
I typed out a long post about my personal experience with being pregnant and on medicaid, but couldn't bring myself to post it.

I think we need to realize a few things, though:

1. If you are on a significant amount of government assistance, you WILL have someone looking into your case quite often. It isn't really possible to cheat the system like everyone says- once you accept government assistance, you basically agree to have every area of your life privvy to the caseworkers that exist to make sure you don't STAY in the position where you need that government assistance in the long term.

2. That being said, you will also generally receive enough assistance to make sure you're living comfortably. People freak out over the fact that people on government assistance are usually provided with decent healthcare, a decent amount of food stamps, or a decent amount of housing assistance. it's okay for our government dollars to go to helping people live decently . I would never want my neighbor to live in abject poverty if they fell on hard times. I don't want those that I DON'T know living in poverty as a punishment for falling on hard times either.

3. "Breeding", as it's been so eloquently termed (because, you know, we as humans have as much dignity as any other animal and should be treated as such, right?), is a basic human right. SHOULD someone have a baby if they can't afford it? That isn't my right to determine. Should they have the RIGHT to have a child, regardless of their situation? Absolutely.

I don't bitch about how people that barely have money own god knows how many animals. I do take offense at the fact that those people seem to take every freaking opportunity available to whine about people having kids, though. I think the best solution would be to keep our noses out of other people's business because, frankly, no one has any right to tell someone else how to live their life.
re: The need to breed, should people on gov. assistance continue to have kids? (karma: 1)  en>fr fr>en
By hummingbird Comments: 8370, member since Mon Apr 18, 2005
On Sat Nov 23, 2013 08:09 PM
Dancing_EMT wrote:



If you complain it's infringing on your "rights", then GET A JOB. If you want your lobster, chips, candy and soda, GET A JOB. The govt doesn't have a "duty" to fund your lifestyle.



Yeah! People on benefits really eat lobster all the time. If you really think that you don't know how the system works and you should try it for a bit and see how much lobster you get whilst on assistance.

The whole title of this post is totally inflammatory, just as the above quote is. If you're talking about the need to breed then you must have some kind of idea of how you're going to stop the inferior classes from breeding and how do you propose that? I'd love to hear your ideas.
re: The need to breed, should people on gov. assistance continue to have kids? en>fr fr>en
By Nyssasisticmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member Comments: 3460, member since Sat Sep 20, 2003
On Sat Nov 23, 2013 08:18 PM
hummingbird wrote:

Dancing_EMT wrote:



If you complain it's infringing on your "rights", then GET A JOB. If you want your lobster, chips, candy and soda, GET A JOB. The govt doesn't have a "duty" to fund your lifestyle.



Yeah! People on benefits really eat lobster all the time. If you really think that you don't know how the system works and you should try it for a bit and see how much lobster you get whilst on assistance.

The whole title of this post is totally inflammatory, just as the above quote is. If you're talking about the need to breed then you must have some kind of idea of how you're going to stop the inferior classes from breeding and how do you propose that? I'd love to hear your ideas.


You mean without it sounding like a pro-eugenics bit of propaganda from 4 decades ago?
re: The need to breed, should people on gov. assistance continue to have kids? (karma: 1)  en>fr fr>en
By kandykanePremium member Comments: 16116, member since Mon May 01, 2006
On Sat Nov 23, 2013 08:26 PM
^ That is exactly what bothers me about these kinds of threads. It is always, always implied that people on public assistance are somehow inferior and lower class than the rest of the population. It is pretty well known on DDN that I was a child of poverty. In our poorest times my mom only ever qualified for a one time benefit of $100. She was so ashamed to spend it that she drove to a store across town that we never went to and spent it all and never went back to that store. When we unloaded all those groceries, we were so happy to have a stocked pantry and refrigerator! I was only eight and I didn't know the price my mom paid was her dignity and sense of self worth.

I will never forget what it felt like to be looked down on because we were poor. I didn't really understand it at the time, but later I knew. And when I really understood the fault was not mine, but with those who felt they were better than us, I knew the kind of person I never, ever want to be. Some of the comments here, once again, remind me of the kind of person I do not want to be.

kk~
re: The need to breed, should people on gov. assistance continue to have kids? (karma: 1)  en>fr fr>en
By ChristinePremium member Comments: 6118, member since Wed Feb 04, 2009
On Sat Nov 23, 2013 08:29 PM
Edited by Christine (207347) on 2013-11-23 20:45:23 typo
I don't bitch about how people that barely have money own god knows how many animals


^How about it!

I do think that the food stamp program could encourage better nutrition with a program more similar to WIC, as Amy suggested, however the reality is the cost of administering the program is often as expensive as the actual "benefits". As KK correctly pointed out, the incidence of fraud is actually lower than tax evasion and the people who actually use these programs, statistically speaking, use them for less than 3 years. Of course there are always stories about someone's sister in law's neighbor who has a boat, a nanny, and a 60" television in every room but still uses food stamps, but most people who have to apply for public assistance do so after a heart wrenching decision making process. And really.... the benefit will provide a family with just about enough money to live in a crappy part of town and go without meat at the end of the month. Of course, there is a safety net in that they also have a medical card which allows them to see the few doctors who actually accept this kind of insurance and the even fewer dentists.

I understand that hard working people are frustrated at the current state of affairs. We can work 80 hours a week and still barely afford to pay our own bills and never have any time to enjoy the fruits of our labors. The middle class is under a terrible burden. HOWEVER... the real problem isn't the most needy among us... the problem is the greedy 1% at the "top" who feed off the working people and are never satisfied with their already great, good fortune but need to feed their insatiable appetite.

As a society, we need to look at what kind of world we want to live in. Do we really want to live in a community that would deny any children food security, medical care, or a safe place to live? Are we really in the business of judging who is entitled to have children? Some of the most accomplished humans of our time have had difficult times. J. K Rowling was a welfare mom, btw.

To address the specific question, I have to answer it with a question... make that two.... Should people who work too many hours continue to have kids? They have enough money, but do they have enough time? and.... is it our business? I happen to believe that time is more precious than money but it is none of my business how others make these decisions. And I'd be happy to continue aid to dependent children, food stamps, and medicaid and suggest that we put the war machine on hold for a single hour a day to fund these programs. We'd have money left over.

Keep On Dancing*
re: The need to breed, should people on gov. assistance continue to have kids? en>fr fr>en
By Dancing_EMTmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member Comments: 3339, member since Wed Dec 08, 2004
On Sat Nov 23, 2013 09:08 PM
hummingbird wrote:

Dancing_EMT wrote:



If you complain it's infringing on your "rights", then GET A JOB. If you want your lobster, chips, candy and soda, GET A JOB. The govt doesn't have a "duty" to fund your lifestyle.



Yeah! People on benefits really eat lobster all the time. If you really think that you don't know how the system works and you should try it for a bit and see how much lobster you get whilst on assistance.

The whole title of this post is totally inflammatory, just as the above quote is. If you're talking about the need to breed then you must have some kind of idea of how you're going to stop the inferior classes from breeding and how do you propose that? I'd love to hear your ideas.


I don't qualify for assistance. (Yay for being responsible!) So I can't "try it for awhile". I do however live within my means. Here's a really simple formula, if you can't afford your own food, you can't afford kids.

Like I said, what if there wasn't any welfare? NO safety net. I highly doubt we'd see a bunch of kids starve. If people knew that they wouldn't be rewarded for being irresponsible, what would they do?
re: The need to breed, should people on gov. assistance continue to have kids? en>fr fr>en
By Caulfieldmember has saluted, click to view salute photos Comments: 388, member since Mon Aug 31, 2009
On Sat Nov 23, 2013 09:24 PM
Dancing_EMT wrote:

I don't qualify for assistance. (Yay for being responsible!)


How is being disabled being irresponsible? How is being between jobs irresponsible? How is being desperately ill and unable to work irresponsible? This is grossly oversimplifying the whole concept of assistance. Most (re: not ALL) people find themselves in tough situations through no fault of their own, and genuinely need the help. What if these people had children BEFORE falling into hard times?

At my job, I often deal with people that are on assistance for one reason or another. Many of these people are looking for work or unable to work. Of course there's always that chunk of swine that just feeds off the system and continually pops out children just to fall into a higher child tax bracket, but from my experiences, it's such a small minority. I think it's wonderful that there are systems in place not only to provide aid to those trying to get back on their feet, but also to their children who have no say in their circumstances. I'm not a huge fan of kids, but who am I to deny their basic human rights and dignity?

I just don't think it's fair to lump all people into one overgeneralised category. Being on assistance doesn't automatically make you irresponsible. And then we wonder why people who genuinely need assistance are ashamed to receive it. Yeesh.
re: The need to breed, should people on gov. assistance continue to have kids? en>fr fr>en
By Dancing_EMTmember has saluted, click to view salute photosPremium member Comments: 3339, member since Wed Dec 08, 2004
On Sat Nov 23, 2013 09:29 PM
This thread isn't about people who are disabled or who got laid off. It's about the people who continue having kids while on assistance.
Page:
Page 1 of 21 2

ReplySendWatch