then child services called in and the children removed from the people who had them and now cant/wont support them. The child is the parents responsibility.. not everyone elses,. and I feel strongly if you cant take care of yours. then dont have them.
So if the child is the parents’ responsibility, you still feel that the children should be removed and placed in a home somewhere, where we taxpayers will then support them. That’s not really a solution. We still end up paying for the children of irresponsible parents.
Not that I have the answer. I don’t think there is one. When idiots procreate, nobody wins.
I wouldn’t have a problem with welfare if it was used properly. Why do I have to pay for something that I, or my children, can not use if needed?
I was going through a divorce 13 years ago, I had two young children and a job paying less than 10,000 a year. My husband left us for another woman and I had to pay the house note, utilities, and try to keep my children fed. The courts would not speed up their process because of the holidays, so it took months. I had no one to turn to, so I thought I would try to get food stamps to help me get by. What was I thinking? They would not even listen to me once I told them I was still married. They did not even point me in the direction of someone that could help. I could not believe it. Here I was, trying to keep from losing everything and could not get even a little help.
But all this made me a stronger person and I thank God for that. I found a better job and I put myself through college and now make four times what I was making 13 years ago. Of course, I did not qualify for any type of educational aid so now I have student loans to pay back. So it does make me angry when I see people on welfare and they have never worked or made an effort to work. What gives them the right to all this free aid when others can’t get it?
then child services called in and the children removed from the people who had them and now cant/wont support them. The child is the parents responsibility.. not everyone elses,. and I feel strongly if you cant take care of yours. then dont have them.
So if the child is the parents’ responsibility, you still feel that the children should be removed and placed in a home somewhere, where we taxpayers will then support them. That’s not really a solution. We still end up paying for the children of irresponsible parents.
Not that I have the answer. I don’t think there is one. When idiots procreate, nobody wins.
-nab
We are going to have to support the children regardless, but I have a problem with supporting the lazy parents. Do not give them money that can be used for salon visits and fancy clothes. The money is distributed too freely without any type of controls on how it is to be used.
then child services called in and the children removed from the people who had them and now cant/wont support them. The child is the parents responsibility.. not everyone elses,. and I feel strongly if you cant take care of yours. then dont have them.
So if the child is the parents’ responsibility, you still feel that the children should be removed and placed in a home somewhere, where we taxpayers will then support them. That’s not really a solution. We still end up paying for the children of irresponsible parents.
Not that I have the answer. I don’t think there is one. When idiots procreate, nobody wins.
-nab
We are going to have to support the children regardless, but I have a problem with supporting the lazy parents. Do not give them money that can be used for salon visits and fancy clothes. The money is distributed too freely without any type of controls on how it is to be used.
******
Northcountrygirl
You are exactly what I was talking about, you went thru hard times, and instead of sitting on the couch collecting welfare, you got out there and took care of what needed to be done. With education etc.
There is always going to be the problem of the children, but I agree with what you say, if you keep handing lazy parents more and more money then it just keeps the system cycling.
then child services called in and the children removed from the people who had them and now cant/wont support them. The child is the parents responsibility.. not everyone elses,. and I feel strongly if you cant take care of yours. then dont have them.
So if the child is the parents’ responsibility, you still feel that the children should be removed and placed in a home somewhere, where we taxpayers will then support them. That’s not really a solution. We still end up paying for the children of irresponsible parents.
Not that I have the answer. I don’t think there is one. When idiots procreate, nobody wins.
-nab
**********
If I had a choice, I would rather my tax dollars went to actually support JUST those children, instead of the parents of the children.
If you have a child it is your responsibility. if you cannot take care of it, either financially, socially, mentally or whatever, then yes I think it should be removed to a home where it will get a decent upbringing.
Keeping these children in homes of lazy drug addicts does the child no good whatsoever and it just shows them that is the way to grow up, place them with people who will promote responsibility, education, get them out of the welfare and drug systems, and I bet you would see the begining of a turn around in society in general.
To say that these kids get the money paid out of welfare, toward thier use is ludicrous, go look at the number of drug addict arrests and compare to see how many of those same people are on welfare (BTW I think if you ever get arrested your welfare should also stop) the majority of druggies are on welfare.. and I wonder how they got the money to buy the drugs?? Watch the news. mom lets kids wander out of hotel room while shes in a drunken, druggie state, wanna bet this mom isnt on welfare?
Promote responsibility, birth control, get out of this idea that everything has to be “politically correct” and when something is wrong...show it as wrong. Society is going down the toliet, because these days, nothing is wrong, no one is responsible for thier actions, ask a teacher in school how much fun it is to deal with kids, students know that whatever they do in school, there is now very little consequence.
To solve or at least a problem issue, someone is going to have to start taking a hard stance. instead of being a bleeding heart.
If you have a child it is your responsibility. if you cannot take care of it, either financially, socially, mentally or whatever, then yes I think it should be removed to a home where it will get a decent upbringing.
And where might that be? Do you think that every foster home is the type of place that will give a child a “decent upbringing”? If not a foster home, do you think a group home will provide a child with the things that will one day make him a strong, productive member of society? Maybe. But the sad fact is...probably not.
For every good foster home is one where the family is doing it for the money. Pretty much like welfare parents.
There are no simple answers. There are no perfect solutions. In fact, there aren’t any solutions - that I can see - that are actually better than letting the kids stay where they are. Because in the end, what’s really different? You take a poor, helpless child, who had no say in what sort of home he was born into, and because his parents are worthless take those children and place them in another environment that may be exactly the same - or worse! - and what have you accomplished? Absolutely nothing.
People who work the system are out there everywhere, whether they’re natural parents or foster parents. And everybody feels the same way...punish the adults who are causing the problem. But the sad reality is there are no feasible solutions for the children of those parents.
If you have a child it is your responsibility. if you cannot take care of it, either financially, socially, mentally or whatever, then yes I think it should be removed to a home where it will get a decent upbringing.
And where might that be? Do you think that every foster home is the type of place that will give a child a “decent upbringing”? If not a foster home, do you think a group home will provide a child with the things that will one day make him a strong, productive member of society? Maybe. But the sad fact is...probably not.
For every good foster home is one where the family is doing it for the money. Pretty much like welfare parents.
There are no simple answers. There are no perfect solutions. In fact, there aren’t any solutions - that I can see - that are actually better than letting the kids stay where they are. Because in the end, what’s really different? You take a poor, helpless child, who had no say in what sort of home he was born into, and because his parents are worthless take those children and place them in another environment that may be exactly the same - or worse! - and what have you accomplished? Absolutely nothing.
People who work the system are out there everywhere, whether they’re natural parents or foster parents. And everybody feels the same way...punish the adults who are causing the problem. But the sad reality is there are no feasible solutions for the children of those parents.
-nab
***
Your right there is no simple solution or one solution fits all.. But I dont think that leaving a impressionable child in a home where (and yes I know not all welfare homes are like this, but I bet the majority of them are).
morals arent taught..after all how can you preach morals when you have 5 kids and each have a different father,
there is a high probability of drug use,
the family is not going to exhibit to the children the value of jobs and working hard for what you want. so promoting another generation of welfare babies on the way.
Go drive thru some of the local projects, (if your brave enough) and what do you see, kids standing on the street corners, drugs are rife, little parental supervision. high crime and young teenagers already pregnant. Do you think that is a better situation for a child to live in. just because those are thier birth parents? I dont think that the ability to breed a child makes a good parent.
Take that money that is used to support these people and put it toward quality training and foster homes. If need be allow these children to be adopted into loving families, I have know several people who were adopted, they all grew up well. Just feeding the system is not the way to go.
So when you get disabled you want to have a urine test at random when you can’t walk much less work. It takes years to draw social security disability. You have to go through a process with a lawyer whom gets half your money to get it started. Half the people who apply are dead before they get any money thats the system. You want to make these process a little harder for these sick and dreadfully hurting people. I think you need to go down to the social security building and see a few of these hurting people. My friend died waiting on the system to get his help started. I really resent your comments, imagine you can’t work, you have no insurance and you have to go to the doctor and beg someone to help you. Then the give you the very minmum amount of care they can so you can be sent home to die. I thank God that you can get help from your parents money they paid in. Most people drawing disability do not have enough benefits paid in to get much help.
Being disabled and being a welfare parent are two entirely different things.
Nevertheless, your post assumes what many people expect: that our government, funded by taxpayers, is responsible for taking care of people who can’t take care of themselves.
Over the years, people have come to expect that when they get down, there is an organization ready, with funds, to help pick them back up. Many folks no longer even appreciate the help they get...they complain that it took too long for somebody else to give them money. It was too hard. They had to fill out too much paperwork and be interviewed. It wasn’t enough when they got it! They deserve more! How dare the government make them work so hard to get money that’s not even enough to support them!
Lots of the elderly complain that Social Security isn’t enough to live on. Well, it never was MEANT to be enough to live on. The intent was to assist us in our later years, along with money we’ve saved ourselves, so that we can support ourselves when we no longer work. But lots of people DON’T save as they work and then get pissed that their social security checks alone don’t provide them with what they think they deserve.
Welfare moms keep having children, knowing full well they can’t afford them but hey, as long as somebody else will, why not? It’s a paycheck and that’s what’s most important to them.
The disabled are another group that has a lot of freeloaders and don’t pretend it’s not so. Every single one of us knows somebody who’s drawing disability that they do not deserve and every single one of those cheaters hurts the legitimate disabled by working the system for their own benefit.
If people learned early that our government does not exist to bail people out when they get in financial trouble, we’d have fewer worthless sponges sucking others’ tax money into their own pockets, and maybe realize that it’s their own responsibility to take care of themselves and not somebody else’s. Of course that’s a pipe dream because the mentality of the sort of people who misuse and defraud the government coffer will never change.
And this leads to the thought of be careful who you vote for! Which party is it that wants more “social services.” Typically the Democratic party is more for social services and “helping” with welfare etc. I also work with the welfare families, and do go to the projects and nothing irks me more to see how well my tax dollars are being spent. Must be nice to have steak, have your nails done weekly and drive an Escalade, plus all the jewelry you own. Even with a 6 digit income between my husband and myself, I am still living check to check-and I have none of those luxuries. But you better believe, he and I will both work our tails off with extra jobs/hours to make sure our kids are taken care of. The root of it is not only irresponsibility, but laziness. I would dig ditches or work at McDonald’s if I had too. There are jobs there if you have the initiative to apply and quit milking the system. And as to being disabled, I have back problems and go to work every day anyway-it’s all in what you consider important. I am not saying that there are those that are disabled that can’t truly work, but perhaps different work could be found. And to add into the figure as to what the 2nd poster said-don’t forget the income they get for a disabled child, which is more-and EVERYONE wants to be diagnosed with asthma-at birth!
