|
Post by blondiec47 on Jun 9, 2016 13:53:17 GMT
We can start by stop making it acceptable. Shows like Teen Mom are not helping. It has taken a while to get here and will take a while to reverse, but as long as society deems it acceptable and those that oppose it are shut down, nothing will change.
|
|
|
Post by femalebusiness on Jun 9, 2016 13:53:21 GMT
so how do we fix this? How do we break the cycle? For one thing any woman who wants welfare must have birth control implanted AND sign an agreement that if she has another child while on welfare either that child will be taken from her and put up for adoption or she will be kicked off the welfare rolls.
|
|
|
Post by smalltowngirlie on Jun 9, 2016 14:06:00 GMT
How do we break the cycle? We take away a lot of the programs that support them. HMMMM, if I get pregnant and work the system, I get my own place paid for, food paid for, school paid for, day care paid for, health insurance paid for, plus some cash for whatever. When there is no money in being a baby maker, then maybe you stop being a baby maker.
If you are already on the system and get pregnant, you are cut off of the system, but you make every form of preventive birth control available for free.
As for the dads, well they get nothing in support. They need to be working, do not take so much out of their paycheck that they can't live themselves, but something goes towards their children. This does not help with the dads with 3,4,5 or more kids. They would not be making enough to give any significant amount to any of their children.
Will any of this happen NO. If you take away the support systems, it is the children that will ultimately suffer the most, and that is the reason it should not happen. They would not be getting the basics they need.
You get to kids early and let them see what is out there other than being a parent. We get rid of the idea in school that every child needs to be on the path to a 4 year college degree. For some they know this is not possible, so if you are not going to college you might as well start your family. Part of it is culture. I have worked with families where the parent I was working with set a goal of being a grandparent. I was working with their 3-4-5 year old child. If I was lucky they set that as a 15 year goal, not 10.
|
|
|
Post by smalltowngirlie on Jun 9, 2016 14:07:07 GMT
We can start by stop making it acceptable. Shows like Teen Mom are not helping. It has taken a while to get here and will take a while to reverse, but as long as society deems it acceptable and those that oppose it are shut down, nothing will change. Shows like that make it seem almost glamorous to have a baby so young. I wonder how much they are all making from the show.
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Jun 9, 2016 14:07:12 GMT
Personally, I'd rather the children be taken from the adult, placed in a good foster home and the mother and father get no financial assistance at all.
|
|
|
Post by smalltowngirlie on Jun 9, 2016 14:18:18 GMT
Personally, I'd rather the children be taken from the adult, placed in a good foster home and the mother and father get no financial assistance at all. I totally agree with you, but I don't think the foster care system could handle it.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 7, 2024 13:38:22 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2016 15:13:45 GMT
Personally, I'd rather the children be taken from the adult, placed in a good foster home and the mother and father get no financial assistance at all. There are not enough foster parents available now...how would the foster system handle the additional influx?
|
|
|
Post by cade387 on Jun 9, 2016 15:16:18 GMT
If you are already on the system and get pregnant, you are cut off of the system, but you make every form of preventive birth control available for free. And if you are raped? Too bad so sad? This isn't a black and white issue. There is a lot of gray
I'm also surprised to see people talk about legislating BC. That seems very big government to me.
|
|
|
Post by epeanymous on Jun 9, 2016 15:25:15 GMT
We can start by stop making it acceptable. Shows like Teen Mom are not helping. It has taken a while to get here and will take a while to reverse, but as long as society deems it acceptable and those that oppose it are shut down, nothing will change. Teen pregnancy has actually declined considerably in recent years (you can see stats quoted up thread), and one contributing factor that some sociologists have credited is teen mom/sixteen and pregnant. My teen daughter and I occasionally watch together, and she is horrified by what her life could look like. I was personally conservative about reproduction, in terms of when we had kids and how financially secure we were. However, people have been decoupling childbearing and financial security since the dawn of time, and you could read op/eds about reproduction and poor people from 100 or 150 years ago that would make modern rhetoric on the subject look mild. My concern is that the kids, full stop, need the financial security and social support to develop fully, regardless of any thoughts anyone might have about decisions their parents make. I always feel like fixating on the parents distracts from that, and that the kids often pay the price for the condemnation of the parents.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 7, 2024 13:38:22 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2016 15:28:39 GMT
I thought you could only be on welfare for 5 years?
|
|
|
Post by smalltowngirlie on Jun 9, 2016 15:57:50 GMT
If you are already on the system and get pregnant, you are cut off of the system, but you make every form of preventive birth control available for free. And if you are raped? Too bad so sad? This isn't a black and white issue. There is a lot of gray
I'm also surprised to see people talk about legislating BC. That seems very big government to me.
Rape is a whole other area. A women that is raped is not trying to get pregnant, trying to get more support or just being lazy with BC, she was brutally attacked, it is not even close to the same thing. If you want to be supported by the government then I have no problem with them making a few rules and regulations for getting those funds. If you don't like the rules and regulations, don't have the government support you.
|
|
|
Post by refugeepea on Jun 9, 2016 16:06:37 GMT
Shows like Teen Mom are not helping. I don't think it is glamorized at all. Most of the former teen moms are total wrecks.
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jun 9, 2016 16:07:41 GMT
A free society cannot start taking poor people's kids away just because they are poor, mandating birth control or any other such thing. This has to be a societal change, and, as others have pointed out there HAS been change. Teen pregnancy rates have dropped substantially. And federal and state spending on the aid these families receive is a tiny drop in the bucket of what we spend on social welfare programs like student loans and social security/medicare as well as tax loopholes and subsidies that benefit the middle and upper classes. Some interesting information about who receives federal benefits and where most of the money goes. Nine Myths About the Social Safety Net
|
|
|
Post by lbp on Jun 9, 2016 16:08:05 GMT
My step sister's daughter, let's call her "Jane" is a prime example of someone either incredibly stupid or smart enough to work the system. She has 4 children all by different fathers. 3 of the fathers are in jail, so no child support from them, and the other father can't keep a job. She doesn't work either. Nor, does she have her children living with her. Her mother is raising her children but Jane gets WIC and every other government hand out imaginable. Of course she claims the kids live with her. She is currently living with another man and probably not using contraceptives so we are expecting news of #5 anytime. She truly thinks this is a perfect set up and jokes about everyone having to work but her.
|
|
|
Post by nurseypants on Jun 9, 2016 16:44:26 GMT
A free society cannot start taking poor people's kids away just because they are poor, mandating birth control or any other such thing. This has to be a societal change, and, as others have pointed out there HAS been change. Teen pregnancy rates have dropped substantially. And federal and state spending on the aid these families receive is a tiny drop in the bucket of what we spend on social welfare programs like student loans and social security/medicare as well as tax loopholes and subsidies that benefit the middle and upper classes. Some interesting information about who receives federal benefits and where most of the money goes. Nine Myths About the Social Safety NetNo one wants to hear fact and reason about this. It messes with their righteous indignation and feelings of moral superiority. Not to mention the opportunity to tell us about their super-slutty (and morally inferior) friends, neighbors and relatives.
|
|
|
Post by secondlife on Jun 9, 2016 16:57:13 GMT
Personally, I'd rather the children be taken from the adult, placed in a good foster home and the mother and father get no financial assistance at all. Lauren, the psychological and emotional trauma involved in removing children from their natural homes and placing them in foster care is likely to outweigh the burden on society of paying for their needs. There is a reason that children should not be removed from their families except under the most extreme of circumstances and the emotional, behavioral, and psychological ramifications of removal are so significant. This is not an adequate solution to this problem.
|
|
|
Post by mellowyellow on Jun 9, 2016 17:01:27 GMT
My step sister's daughter, let's call her "Jane" is a prime example of someone either incredibly stupid or smart enough to work the system. She has 4 children all by different fathers. 3 of the fathers are in jail, so no child support from them, and the other father can't keep a job. She doesn't work either. Nor, does she have her children living with her. Her mother is raising her children but Jane gets WIC and every other government hand out imaginable. Of course she claims the kids live with her. She is currently living with another man and probably not using contraceptives so we are expecting news of #5 anytime. She truly thinks this is a perfect set up and jokes about everyone having to work but her. This just infuriates me!
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Jun 9, 2016 17:05:05 GMT
none of the things that are being talked about-- taking the kids away, mandating birth control, etc.-- will actually fix the ROOT CAUSE of the problem-- they're Band-Aid fixes or reactions to the outcome (the children). Is the problem: -- "People who can't afford kids are still having them" (and personally I don't think it's anyone else's place to determine whether someone *can* or 'can't* afford to have a child) or is the problem: "People are having children on purpose only to get government assistance / get out of working / etc.?" These are two very different issues that will have VERY DIFFERENT CAUSES AND FIXES. (if either of them are actually true; see Merge's post above). You have to decide what the actual issue is that you want to fix before you can determine what the actual root cause is, and to fix the problem once and for all you have to get to the root cause and fix IT. If people make more money by getting on assistance than by getting a job, or people can't get good-paying jobs because they're not educated, or they don't feel like they have any way out of where they are to make a better future than the life what they currently have?? Aren't those the ACTUAL issues, not just 'having too many kids' ?? And if so, then aren't the root causes low wages, poor education, or a lack of 'motivation' (that's not exactly what I mean' but it's the closest I can come)... Aren't THOSE the things that we need to fix? And by addressing THOSE issues, the outcome of 'more people on assistance with tons of kids'-- or whatever it is that you (general you) object to-- should, in turn, be lessened. You don't fix a problem once and for all without knowing: 1) what the actual problem IS and 2) what's actually CAUSING your problem.
|
|
|
Post by oliquig on Jun 9, 2016 17:12:39 GMT
Anyone who is that blasè about the foster care system has obviously never had to deal with them.
And I love all this "I want a smaller government" unless they're poor, then invade their personal business, sterilize them, and they should start digging ditches too. Because they're all out to mess with the system.
It doesn't matter that the largest majority of people on welfare are white and working.
Let's not even take a glance at the uber wealthy who use tax shelters and have all their products made overseas, but still expect giant tax breaks.
Ed-u-ca-tion is the only way to change peoples' attitudes about what they can do with their life.
|
|
|
Post by nurseypants on Jun 9, 2016 17:19:45 GMT
none of the things that are being talked about-- taking the kids away, mandating birth control, etc.-- will actually fix the ROOT CAUSE of the problem-- they're Band-Aid fixes or reactions to the outcome (the children). Is the problem: -- "People who can't afford kids are still having them" (and personally I don't think it's anyone else's place to determine whether someone *can* or 'can't* afford to have a child) or is the problem: "People are having children on purpose only to get government assistance / get out of working / etc.?" These are two very different issues that will have VERY DIFFERENT CAUSES AND FIXES. (if either of them are actually true; see Merge's post above). You have to decide what the actual issue is that you want to fix before you can determine what the actual root cause is, and to fix the problem once and for all you have to get to the root cause and fix IT. If people make more money by getting on assistance than by getting a job, or people can't get good-paying jobs because they're not educated, or they don't feel like they have any way out of where they are to make a better future than the life what they currently have?? Aren't those the ACTUAL issues, not just 'having too many kids' ?? And if so, then aren't the root causes low wages, poor education, or a lack of 'motivation' (that's not exactly what I mean' but it's the closest I can come)... Aren't THOSE the things that we need to fix? And by addressing THOSE issues, the outcome of 'more people on assistance with tons of kids'-- or whatever it is that you (general you) object to-- should, in turn, be lessened. You don't fix a problem once and for all without knowing: 1) what the actual problem IS and 2) what's actually CAUSING your problem. This post requires critical thinking. Those who are doing their moral chest-thumping here and putting their friends, family and neighbors on blast have no interest in thinking critically about the issue. Feeling anger and hatred is so much easier.
|
|
|
Post by compwalla on Jun 9, 2016 17:20:36 GMT
A cultural shift where we are more pragmatic about sexuality would go a long way. Yes, of course people want to have sex. Yes, of course we teach young people about birth control and consent and responsible sexuality. Yes, of course access to birth control is unfettered and inexpensive for both sexes. Yes, a full range of family planning services from birth control to termination are acceptable, easily available, and inexpensive. Of course the minimum wage is enough to afford a decent (if not extravagant) living. Yes, of course there is a safety net there for when things don't go as planned.
Eugenic forced sterilization and removal of people's children is, omg. Leaving families without any help when they don't fit your perception of ideal? It is so far beyond the pale. I literally can't even.
|
|
|
Post by bigbundt on Jun 9, 2016 17:23:35 GMT
so how do we fix this? How do we break the cycle? Whatever it is, it isn't an easy answer. My easy answer (which I know really isn't) is to reduce most of programs while drastically increasing accessible day care. Because while I do believe in hard work and one earning their own way and supporting their own family, having to pay for daycare is such an incredible hurdle to overcome. And honestly I wish that if they did increase accessible childcare, it was open to everyone, not just those that qualify based on income. I know a few moms who work that have turned down promotions and better paying jobs because taking them would would put them just over income limits for a lot of these programs so they would either not qualify or their benefits would drastically decrease. Taking more money or advancing means they would be in worse financial shape than if they just stayed where they are. That's a problem.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 7, 2024 13:38:22 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2016 17:49:07 GMT
I'm still confused about how all these people are spending years living on welfare, I really thought that there was a 5 year limit to receive welfare.
|
|
|
Post by compwalla on Jun 9, 2016 18:00:09 GMT
I'm still confused about how all these people are spending years living on welfare, I really thought that there was a 5 year limit to receive welfare. Yes, there is. One can no longer just keep having children to extend welfare benefits nor can they stay on welfare "for generations." That changed during the Clinton administration. But people still latch onto the urban myth of the "welfare queen" which never was the norm in the first place no matter how many apocryphal anecdotes are dredged up over and over.
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Jun 9, 2016 18:17:20 GMT
My favorite is when these deadbeats say "well if she can't afford the kid, I'll take him/her". Right. Because you're so responsible. My other favorite is the girlfriends who decide they want to be stay-at-home moms while deadbeat works earning $400/wk with four previous children (usually from 4 different mothers)to support. But then they can get more money from the county/state. I'm pretty liberal but get sick of hearing people say that they don't work because "they didn't have kids just to have someone else raise them" while they live off of assistance.
|
|
katybee
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,448
Jun 25, 2014 23:25:39 GMT
|
Post by katybee on Jun 9, 2016 18:22:11 GMT
FTR, my friend's daughter is NOT on public assistance and has a good job and supports her son just fine. My issue is with her deadbeat boyfriend who refuses to work and support ANY of his multiple children. That I cannot excuse and I will "put him on blast" for it. He is young and healthy and will NEVER be a rap star, so he needs to get a fricking job.
And I do wonder what makes women attracted to him-- there have obviously been several. Attracted enough to accidentally/on purpose get pregnant by him. Birth control is easy enough to come by these days. I think they think that somehow they will be a family and that will fill some kind of hole in their lives.
I think sex education is ESSENTIAL... but so is building up the self-esteem of young girls so they don't feel a baby is the only way to happiness.
|
|
Rainbow
Pearl Clutcher
Where salt is in the air and sand is at my feet...
Posts: 4,103
Jun 26, 2014 5:57:41 GMT
|
Post by Rainbow on Jun 9, 2016 18:46:50 GMT
Key Findings • States have developed widely varying approaches to time limits. States have broad flexibility in designing time-limit policies, in large part because the federal time limit does not apply to state-funded benefits. Currently, 40 states have time limits that can result in the termination of families’ welfare benefits; 17 of those states have limits of fewer than 60 months. However, nearly half the national welfare caseload is in states that either have no time limit (2 states) or a time limit that reduces or modifies benefits when the limit is reached (8 states and the District of Columbia). link
|
|
~Lauren~
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,876
Jun 26, 2014 3:33:18 GMT
|
Post by ~Lauren~ on Jun 9, 2016 18:57:36 GMT
I'm still confused about how all these people are spending years living on welfare, I really thought that there was a 5 year limit to receive welfare. Yes, there is. One can no longer just keep having children to extend welfare benefits nor can they stay on welfare "for generations." That changed during the Clinton administration. But people still latch onto the urban myth of the "welfare queen" which never was the norm in the first place no matter how many apocryphal anecdotes are dredged up over and over. You live in Virginia, right? Well, I can tell you that in NY there are quite a few "welfare queens" despite what Clinton did or what you think.
|
|
|
Post by compwalla on Jun 9, 2016 19:16:55 GMT
Yes, there is. One can no longer just keep having children to extend welfare benefits nor can they stay on welfare "for generations." That changed during the Clinton administration. But people still latch onto the urban myth of the "welfare queen" which never was the norm in the first place no matter how many apocryphal anecdotes are dredged up over and over. You live in Virginia, right? Well, I can tell you that in NY there are quite a few "welfare queens" despite what Clinton did or what you think. No, my NAME is Virginia. It is both a place and a name. I don't live there. I do live in a place where funding has been cut for basic services to the point where women are smuggling mifepristone across the border from Mexico and where the replacement HIV testing program that was implemented after Planned Parenthood was defunded has performed zero HIV tests. Where millions of my fellow Texans are stuck in the medicare gap without insurance and where it's more important to imply to kids that Jesus rode a dinosaur than it is to educate our students about science that's factually accurate. And no matter what, I'd much rather err on the side of helping people than ripping away their children or forcing them into doing things with their bodies without their consent. No. Caring for our fellow human beings and exhibiting some human compassion is not a position I'll ever be ashamed of no matter how many people gnash their teeth about 'takers.'
|
|
|
Post by LavenderLayoutLady on Jun 9, 2016 19:21:38 GMT
so how do we fix this? How do we break the cycle? Whatever it is, it isn't an easy answer. My easy answer (which I know really isn't) is to reduce most of programs while drastically increasing accessible day care. Because while I do believe in hard work and one earning their own way and supporting their own family, having to pay for daycare is such an incredible hurdle to overcome. And honestly I wish that if they did increase accessible childcare, it was open to everyone, not just those that qualify based on income. I know a few moms who work that have turned down promotions and better paying jobs because taking them would would put them just over income limits for a lot of these programs so they would either not qualify or their benefits would drastically decrease. Taking more money or advancing means they would be in worse financial shape than if they just stayed where they are. That's a problem.ITA! I know a young mom (in her mid twenties) who had a son at 19 yrs old. She worked as a waitress while studying to be a nurse. As a waitress, she was eligible for childcare subsidy, food stamps, etc. After getting her first nursing job, she made too much and daycare and most of her food stamps were ripped right out from under her. She went from making do, to really struggling. Suddenly having to pay for all of her daycare expenses, and most of her food. She had told me that it is truly frustrating because the difference in pay isn't so great, and doesn't bridge the gap. She is truly an example of someone trying to better themselves and struggling.
|
|