There Ought to Be a Law...

It was called "Workfare" and I was a programmer instituting the code in the computer to support it.

1.) To receive welfare funds (aka AFDC), you HAD to perform a service for the state (aka: work for your money!)
2.) The state paid to give you vocational training (and paid the child care). If you failed to complete the course, you were taken off the welfare rolls.
3.) The number of children you had when you entered the system would be all the $ you would get. You didn't get more money for more children.
4.) Two year time limit. You could receive AFDC for 24 mo....after that, you were history.

It got the vast majority of the folks OFF the welfare rolls and into the workforce! Great, huh?!

Then, liberals from a very liberal western state moved in to this once bastion of conservative politics/policies. Undid everything that was done.

(No I am not talking about FL but another state I once lived in.)

The problem is the entitlement mentality. The US constitution promised all citizens the right to PURSUE happiness, et.al. It didn't guarantee results.

Does anyone notice that we are the only country where our "poor" are fat (obese), live in their own apartments, have TVs, computers and cell phones and drive cars? I wonder what the worlds REAL poor think!

BTW, I have been criticized and mocked for "breeding" 5 children. I have worked all my life and paid my bills. Bought my houses with regular mtgs - not subprime. I am owed over $100K in child support never received. I never lived near my family. I have done it all on my own. My children wanted for nothing.

You want kids? Great! Just be able to pay for them!

I agree with you. First of all, Welfare needs to be TEMPORARY. It should only be a means to help people get on their feet. ANY of the state/federal assistance like that should be temporary. And yes, there should be a limit as to how many kids you can have. Maybe, they give you that TEMPORARY assistance for the first kid or two, and after that, you are on your own!

I have friends even who are single moms and get free daycare, food stamps, pay next to nothing for housing, etc. But, because I'm married and my husband works (i'm in school, not working) we get NOTHING.

I see people in walmart in line in front of me... They have 3 carts full of stuff, most of which they pay for with their food stamps and WIC checks (8 gallons of milk, 6 dozen eggs, a whole cart full of cheese and things), and yet, they are diving fancy cars and their 2 year olds have on thick gold necklaces and bracelets! Yeah, THEY need that money! Please.

Whether you agree with the welfare system or not, if the US could put a cap on how many children someone is allowed per their income, that would be a big step towards socialism, and chances are we'd end up in China's current situation.

I don't have a problem with people getting public assistance if they have fallen on hard times and need it. I DO have a problem with people putting more effort into screwing over the system than they do in trying to earn a legitimate living.

I do not believe in putting caps on welfare, but I believe that a woman should not get additional money for having more children on welfare UNLESS she was already pregnant when she went on it.

Why should a family with triplets be penalized just because their kids all arrived at the same time?

And don't get me started on people getting SSI for non-legitimate reasons! :angryfire

I think if a person is counting on others to pay for their decision to have children, then it is my business as a taxpayer, and they should be restricted as to how many I have to support. Now if they're supporting their own, have as many as they can afford.

My changes would cover everyone from a pregnant 17yr old primip to a 35yr old G5P4 housewife with no skills whose hubby just moved in with his 18yr old toy.
1. Full support, including child care assistance, housing, utilities and food stamps. The qualifications would be:
a. drug test prior to receiving assistance, and random screens (if I have to take one to work for my money, they can certainly take one to not work for a check)
b. Mom has to work, and/or attend college or trade school. Failure to do either will result in 3 month notice to stop support. Part time at McDs while in school would be acceptable, and all necessary bills will be covered.
c. If, at the end of 2 yrs, mom can show that she has been working towards a better career, financial stability and self-sufficiency, support could be extended for 1 more year, with another review at the end of the year. A maximum of 4 years (time to get college pre-reqs, applications, acceptance and coursework completed) would be allowed.
2. Full payment for depo, mirena or other long lasting contraception. Tubals would also be covered, but not necessarily encouraged. Once mom becomes self-sufficient she can have all the babies she'd like to support.
3. Like FLmomof5 said, the number of children and amount fo support you get when you enter the system (unless already preggo at the time) is the most you'll ever receive. I don't give a rip how many children you'd like to pop out, but don't expect extra money from the gov't to pay for them.

The above things would also apply to people whose spouses have died. Lots of people believe that widows are riding some kind of gravy train with Social Security, life insurance, etc. but my observation is that it isn't true. Not everyone is eligible for Social Security death benefits, and not everyone has life insurance and even if they do, that money is often gone or nearly so once the medical bills and funeral are paid for.

When I worked at the low-income clinic, I was surprised at one subgroup that often falls through the cracks - women in their 50s who hadn't worked in decades, if at all, whose husbands had died. Those women weren't eligible for ANYTHING.

Many good points phriedomRN.

I disagree. In this case, the government wouldn't be putting a cap on how many children someone were allowed to have per their income- the government would only be putting a cap on how much government money one is eligible to receive and basing that on the number of children one has when they enter the system- and not increasing it if one has more children. If/when one moves on and out of said system, they are free to resume their breeding habits and go on to have as many children as they so desire.

The point being- the government needs to cease being an enabler for those who can't control their breeding habits and breed more than they can afford to support. No one is saying they can't have more once their situation changes and the government is no longer supporting their family/children.