Should welfare recipients be allowed to keep having children

Wow, you've really opened up a can of worms here! To first try to answer your title question as simply as possible, I don't know that there's a way to NOT "allow" anyone to keep having children short of forced abortions and forced sterilization. I suppose we could keep them from keeping the children they have but that would REALLY open a can of worms! I mean, would that mean taking a baby away from a mother who had never done anything to show she wasn't a good or fit mother simply because of her economic situation at the time of the baby's birth or what? It would be nearly impossible to enforce and totally impossible to know it was fair since every situation is different and life happens to good people. I think many states already have time limits on how long someone can receive cash assistance at least and I'm pretty sure some give little or nothing for additional children after two. I think food stamp benefits increase according to family size but the cash amount is very small no matter how many kids one has. The idea of having a two year lifetime limit may seem fine and dandy in good economic times but these days, with unemployment so high and so few jobs even for educated and qualified people it's not really feasible. I'm all for assistance with job training and child care and requiring someone to show proof of actively seeking work once they've gotten some training but how can you punish someone, especially the children, for someone not working when no one will hire them? You wrote, "I resent very much the fact that some people who sit home and collect welfare continue to have three, four, five and more babies without a care in the world as to how they will afford to raise them. I can barely afford to send my children to community college because I am so busy paying for welfare recipients children to go to college," but then further down you wrote, "Don't tell me there aren't three and four generations of the same family who have always been on welfare - I know too many people that fit this description." I won't argue with the latter, especially since after delivering mail for 18 years I saw it all but obviously most of these welfare recipients are NOT sending their kids to college or they wouldn't also end up on welfare, would they? Unfortunately, these kids get stuck in a rut and without someone to give them a hand to pull them up they don't know how to get out of it. I wanted to add that I agree entirely with the other posters who have said corporate welfare and farming subsidies are worse for our economy than giving a small stipend, food stamps and medical assistance to poor young mothers. I especially believe that way considering our unemployment is as high as it is at least in part because of corporations that pay their CEOs several hundred times more than those who do the actual work and then give them bonuses in the millions on top of their salary to reward them for laying off thousands of those much lower paid workers. How can we be fine with that yet complain when someone needs a helping hand for awhile to feed and clothe their children? Annie

Well Wlee, I don't like welfare either. I don't understand why tens of millions of my tax payer dollars in FARM SUBSIDIES should be sent to Manhattan, New York where there isn't a farm for miles. Why should hundreds of billions of MY taxpayer dollars be spent on Bush's war for reelection in Iraq? There are alot of money pits for taxpayer dollars, welfare is just one of them. By welfare do you mean people that receive money from the government? Because if that is your definition of "welfare", then you will see millions of Americans effect by this. Especially heads of corporations, and the defense industry who receive "CORPORATE WELFARE". So, if you want to ban people on welfare to have children, then you will lose many talented executives because they want to have kids.

I don't know if it is still the same but a person in the military got a pay increase for 3 dependents - a spouse and two children - any more than that and it came out of what they already got to support them. I would say on welfare - two kids and then youre on your own - no further pay increases.

Massachusetts program works wonderfully as far as welfare goes. An individual can only be on welfare for 2 years, this is called a transitional period. During this time welfare will help with classes so an uneducated parent can get the skills they need to enter the work force. They help with child care, and of course food stamps and medical. After they finish school and get a job the money part gets cut off and they may still qualify for food stamps. They are offered healthcare if the new employers do not offer it, it is based on a sliding payscale. They keep the child care for an additional year. So within three years they are weened off of half the welfare system. Food stamps is a separate program and they must qualify every month showing what their income is. I honestly believe that Mass has this down pat and the federal government can definately learn a few things form them. Mass believes that you have to give the recipient a future in a field before you throw them off the system otherwise they become life long welfare recipients. This is definately a hand up and not a hand out.

Maryland still has a Welfare to Work program as far as I know but I'm not sure about Florida, where I live now. As someone has already mentioned, the problem arises when children are made to suffer because of the misdeeds of their parents and, while I do agree that welfare should not be a long term lifestyle, there also needs to be compassion and the realities of life applied to any rules enacted in this area. With unemployment rates as high as they are now, it would be even more difficult for a welfare mom, fresh out of some training program, to find a job.

I personally don't understand how these people can have any self respect. I know people who purposefully get pregnant just so they can claim benefits for the child and not have to work. It's disgusting that not only does everyone else have to pay for them to live this way, but they give a bad reputation to people who genuinely need these benefits.

Personally this has always been something that I have wondered about as well. Why do they continue to just easily hand out $$ to people, especially when they are younger and Single just for having babies? And if you have another one they hand you even more? Seriously I think it is only encouraging lazy people, and when their is not enough work to go around and money to help those out of work, they should only encourage more people trying to do their part before wanting to hand out more money as well. When you see Grown people loosing their benefits who really need them and handing them to people just to continue to have more babies for the Government to take care of, it makes you wonder where things in life are really based from.

Your absolutely right. There are multiple generations on entitlement programs. And they feel it is their right to receive this aid. Whether people should be allowed to keep having kids, I would not want our government to EVER decide when we can and cant have kids. EVER. But I would say that no matter how many kids they have, they should not get any more money. I also think they should be put on notice - 6 months and no more welfare.

I think you can't tell anyone whether or not to have children. It goes down a dangerous road of eugenic type thought. Are we going to start determining whether people are fit mothers or fathers based on their income level? I don't like that idea. There's too much potential for abuse.

don't get me started...oops ...you did. I agree that the welfare system should be in place to help a family out in tough spot. it happens...I was there myself. Circumstances left me in a situation where it was a matter of feeding & providing for my children or losing my pride. I chose to lose my pride...for a short time. I moved, got myself a job (convenience store) with no benefits and very low pay. I immediatley lost all my benefits. I was raising 3 kids on my own at the time. Even on welfare...I was barely getting by. The only way one could possibly be comfortable on that system is to cheat and they do and they get away with it. I did have another child...I was unmarried and on my own. I did not even try to get welfare at that point. I just dealt with it. It was my own doing. I moved into a low-income housing development while I still had 3 at home. They base rent on your income and trust me...if you play by the rules it isn't easy. 30% of the child support that I was supposed to get but rarely did was figured into my rent as well as the income from my job. Then I look around me. A good portion of my neighbors do not work at all. They collect welfare. Their cars are far nicer than mine. They are not struggling at all. Their boyfriends live with them...not claiming income of course because they don't report it. They have kids with these guys and don't put the father's name on the birth certificate. Welfare umps their monthly check to support the baby. The dad is living there rent free and banking his money. Eventually they move out of here and buy a house. I could really rant all night about this but I need to stop. I do know what your are saying

WOW! I appreciatre that it is frustrating to see families living on the state who keep having children they could not afford to care for if not for you and I and millions of other taxpayers - - but it comes down to the kind of nation we want to have... I would rather pay the extra freight than to live in a country where there are restrictions on child bearing. Great diuscussion... thought provoking, eh?

No.

It is such a difficult situation.....it is not the childrens fault that their parents cannot afford tosupport them and need the assistance...so denying assistance to the parents would be in effect, denying the children, which is not something my conscious can do. I have always joked about how, in an ideal world, if you left out the fact that it would be absolutley be ignoring peoples civil liberties (which will not/cannot happen) i would love to see a world where people are not ABLE to have children until they can prove financialls and mentally that they are prepared and fit to have them. I think it owuld solve a LOT of problems. Granted, it is all just a sci-fi dream of mine LoL...but think..no having to worry about birthcontrol, as you cannot get pregnent unless you are approved and see a doctor who will make it so you can...people who have no jobs could not get approved to have children, people who are not mentaly fit to be raisin children could not get approved to have children....as i said..pure fantasy and it will never happen, but just think..there would be no 'unwanted" children left to float around from foster hometo foster home, every child would be loved and well cared for by their families.....if only LoL

I don't like when people just have kids just to collect welfare money. I cannot tell someone not to have children. I just believe everyone should have some ambition in life. Welfare is there for when you fall and need help to get up. After you get on your feet you need to give it up and move on. They should learn how to save money. Happy lotting.