Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleasurepays
this is sort of odd... this idea that society owes someone assistance, yet they are not obligated to society to not abuse it or to act ethically and responsibly. i kinda agree with you... if someone wants to be on public assistance for any reason other than being the victim of an act of god, it should come with some significant strings attached. someone gets struck by lightening, house gets burned down in a freak accident.. by all means, i think we should help. they keep cranking out kids as if they're hamsters... hm... maybe they shouldn't be allowed to be parents to begin with. why have we decided as a society that you can be dead broke, no education, have 5 kids and have a target goal of 10?
sadly, the very idea of welfare is predicated on the notion that there is a victim (real or perceived) ... this makes it hard to make the argument that this person should endure additional hardships to receive needed financial assistance, although it would certainly reduce the occurrences. at some point, society as a whole will need to stop the PC BS and start calling it like it is, or there is no real hope for any improvement until things get much worse.
but i think there are quite a few restrictions on welfare now. Clinton signed The Welfare Reform Act which put a lot of limitations and restrictions on how a person can claim benefits.
i can't believe a guy can make a tv show (Maury) based on women having no idea who the father is of their kid... and even to the point that they are accusing a 1/2 dozen or more guys. i think they world was a better place when a woman was considered a whore for having a kid out of wedlock. not saying its ideal... but on the whole, families have eroded along with traditional family values. eroded to the point that kids are parenting themselves for the most part.
|
Much of what you say I agree with fully. I think sometimes shit happens. If a woman is married and has a couple of kids and her husband wants her to be a stay and home mom, great. Then if one day he walks out on them and she has no job, no money and two kids to take care, I think it is okay for the state/gov to step in and give her a hand up. But I think it needs to be made plenty clear that this is not a lifelong thing and that she is going to have to work towards getting a job and providing for those kids. It sucks that her husband walked out on her, but she can't expect everyone else to pay her way just because her husband was a jackass.
What amazes me is the mindset of some people. A friend of mines wife worked at a grocery store for several years. There was a woman who came in who had 6 kids all from different fathers and she was proud that she had been on welfare for 20 years. She had a daughter who was 18 and knocked up and she was actually bragging that she was going to be on welfare too. To them it was the same as if mom was a doctor and her daughter went on to be a doctor too. It is sad when people are being raised with the idea that they can't achieve nothing so they might as well accept that they will be poor and living off the system.
I know there have been a lot of welfare reforms, but I think a lot of it is still controlled on the state level. I live in a very liberal state. If you a single woman and you are pregnant you can get welfare, food stamps, housing assistance and health insurance without lifting a finger. You don't even need to be single. A guy a friend of mine knows quit his job so that his wife could get on the oregon health plan and it would pay for their second child to be born because it was cheaper than using his work insurance.