@woiyo,
A family isn't defined by its means of support.
@FreeDuck,
True but---a family can also be dysfunctional and maladaptive.
@revelette2,
I think ...anything that involves the government takes time. I think it's genuinely sad children must be the ones most affected.
@parados,
parados wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
For God's sake, I never said anything of the kind. I have said over and over that people who just have bad luck deserve aid.
I'm curious who decides it's bad luck vs whatever other reason you feel would and should eliminate government aid.
Do you believe that anyone who messes up his life, no matter how much willful bad behavior is involved, should be not merely fed and clothed, but fully bailed out at the expense of the taxpayers? I don't. If I gamble away my bank account, my possessions, my home, why should the taxpayers have to restore it all? Like every other case of government aid, a combination of laws, policy, and government case managers should decide.
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:
So I am curious, how would you, if you were in charge, enforce these beliefs? Social workers regularly go out to parents who need it for one reason or another, but I don't think as a result any benefits are taken away for having too many kids when you can't afford it. Sometimes kids are taken away, or benefits taken away if you they are obtained by fraud, but we don't have a behavior court yet such as they do in other countries and I hope we never do. If a spouse is selling drugs, he goes to jail, but the wife and the kids don't have suffer for their bad choice in hooking up with a drug dealer or user by having their benefits taken away.
I would give everyone who applied a minimum of food, shelter, and job training if they wanted it, but more aid than that would be reserved for those cases which seemed deserving. For example, a hypothetical person who had repeatedly engaged in criminal conduct would probably receive less extraordinary effort than someone who had lived very decently but had had bad luck.
@Brandon9000,
You never know about people...maybe she's not the brightest...but I can't imagine having 16 kids being anything but hard work...have you ever taken full care of a single child? It's hard work. Also-- her kids deserve support...even if the father is a felon.
@Germlat,
Germlat wrote:
You never know about people...maybe she's not the brightest...but I can't imagine having 16 kids being anything but hard work...have you ever taken full care of a single child? It's hard work. Also-- her kids deserve support...even if the father is a felon.
You keep on misquoting me and misrepresenting my posts as though you barely glance at them before responding. I never said that people shouldn't be helped because they're not bright and I have said over and over that everyone should be fed and given a place to stay, which includes her kids. I have even said that everyone deserves job counseling. All I said, and you will never succeed in making this look wrong, is that society is not responsible for giving people extraordinary help with their bad life choices or willful bad behavior. Why did she have this extraordinary number of children with no apparent means to take care of them? I wouldn't have, even if I had the opportunity. Why did she hang out with a criminal over a long period of time?
I'm from a generation of women who learned about and accepted usage of birth control, and I count myself lucky, though I know about negs re all those pills over years. I'm still all for it, for control. Many women don't take them, for religious reasons, or because they cost money they don't have, or their insurance won't pay, or from plain ignorance, and some probably start out thinking a baby would be nice, as I think some teens are apt to, since, babies are nice, but they don't foresee the consequences.
I've been reading about manipulative women on a2k in the last few days; I'll agree some are, as not being manipulative can be a learned behavior for males and females. So, some may think then he'll marry me. I think, though, that that was more of a 1950's take on matters, having lived back then as well as now.
I don't know anything about this woman, not having read up, but I'm wondering about her mindset on birth control all along.
@Brandon9000,
So you would make it harder for the children in those situations to improve their lives, the very ones who need it the most.
@Brandon9000,
It is not against the law to hang out with a criminal. Maybe he didn't start out that way, maybe he has other good qualities we don't know about, maybe she just loves him, we can't and shouldn't be setting ourselves up as behavior judges and award people money based on our own standards of behavior, and we definitely shouldn't be making the very kids who need it the most pay for the supposed misbehavior of the parents by not helping them "extraordinarily" the most.
@Advocate,
How is it the fault of the children?
@revelette2,
Sorry but...at a certain point in life you ARE responsible for your choices...the children however are not. He caused a very uncomfortable situation for his children....I don't care how great he could possibly be. Potential is one thing...reality another.
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:So you would make it harder for the children in those situations to improve their lives, the very ones who need it the most.
I guess so. If a child's parents make dumb decision after dumb decision, the kid might actually suffer. I feel responsible for the things I have enumerated incessantly here - food, shelter, job counseling - for anyone. I do not feel responsible for annulling every bit of every fool's bad life choices.
@Brandon9000,
I am thankful you are not in charge of making those decisions and hope those that are do not think the same as you do regarding underprivileged children unlucky enough to born by parents who may have made a bad choice which contributed to their situation, at least according to you. I can just sit and picture such a situation in my mind the setting almost like the one I picture when I think of the day of judgment, Jesus dividing the wheat from the shaft. Except fortunately, the children are all in the kingdom of God and go up to heaven regardless of their parent choices in life.
@Brandon9000,
Perhaps, although I really don't think we should come to the point where we base benefits on the choice people choose when they love someone and have children by them, or to the point where decide benefits on the limits of children people have. It all smacks too much of a
real socialist state.
@revelette2,
I meant the above reply to Germlat.
@FreeDuck,
At least not that group of 12. I guess in your world, personal responsibility does not exist.
People having fits over the occasional large welfare family must be projecting, thinking that it's the norm. Actually, according to a survey I just read
And while the stereotype of the “welfare queen” is a woman who has more children to increase the benefits she gets from government programs, families who are enrolled look similar to those who aren’t. “Average family size was the same (3.7 persons), whether or not a family received assistance,” the report notes.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/12/18/3081791/welfare-recipient-spending/
@Germlat,
Germlat wrote:
How is it the fault of the children?
I never said that. I will say that the odds are against such children turning out to be solid and conributing citizens.
