The Welfare Myth

[WTJ]

No, his family should take care of him.

This is a great point. Why are people having kids they can't afford, particularly when you factor in the Planned Parenthood programs as partially publicly provided?

Does it have to do with an automatic raise in benefits to care for an additional human?

Obviously, this does not apply to orphaned persons, lest I offend someone with my insensitivity again. I assure you all I am more insensitive in person.

 

[TwoForFlinching]

No, his family should take care of him.

It's ridiculous to punish a child for the shortcomings of a parent(s)

 

[Blinocac200sx]

It's ridiculous to punish a child for the shortcomings of a parent(s)

It's ridiculous to punish me for the shortcomings of someone else. Also, do we only define family as parents and children?

 

[spd67]

Let me re-state "how bad it is". I'm not advocating that Welfare is good by any means. I'm stating that the problem of large-percentages of people being on welfare is not as bad a problem as its being made out to be. It's also not isolated to those states we love to bash (or even that it's somehow worse in those states than red states as a whole).

It's just funny to me that a lot of folks on here are talking about how all these welfare recipients are voting for Obama, when several of the red-states have more of a percentage of welfare recipients than blue states.

But don't let me F@#$ this whole thread up with facts...

I did not see any numbers where you showed percentage of welfare votes for various parties...It could be that welfare participants in some states don't vote...Or that they don't make up as much of the population in a certain state that votes one way or the other... There interesting numbers but don't really tell us very much.

 

[snipes]

I have more of a problem with foreign aid and less of a problem with domestic aid.
We should take care of American citizens first.

 

[mr ed]

This is a great point. Why are people having kids they can't afford, particularly when you factor in the Planned Parenthood programs as partially publicly provided?

Does it have to do with an automatic raise in benefits to care for an additional human?

Obviously, this does not apply to orphaned persons, lest I offend someone with my insensitivity again. I assure you all I am more insensitive in person.

Because conservatives are forcing them to have the kids instead of free birth control and abortions.
we would be better off with forced birth control for welfare receipients.
Stop the baby factories!

 

[WTJ]

Because conservatives are forcing them to have the kids instead of free birth control and abortions.
we would be better off with forced birth control for welfare receipients.
Stop the baby factories!

You believe the mothers would opt for birth control measures instead of increased income?

 

[SMS]

I haven't read all the data...but does this "Federal Money" include all federal expenditures in the state, or just federal welfare assistance?

For instance, if it includes all fed money, a state like Oklahoma, with 3 Air Force bases, a huge Army base, the ammo plant, FAA logistics center etc... is going to look a lot different than a state like Massachusetts with fewer large fed installations....and it would skew the numbers for those who want to paint the picture that "Red States are taking all the handouts."

 

[gillman7]

If a child is hungry, we should collectively feed that child.

Actually, in original times, the church was the gatekeeper of the social welfare. As people leave churches, and as churches abdicate their responsibilities, the government has stepped in.

No, his family should take care of him.

At times, the child is the most stable part of the family unit.

This is a great point. Why are people having kids they can't afford, particularly when you factor in the Planned Parenthood programs as partially publicly provided?

Does it have to do with an automatic raise in benefits to care for an additional human?

Obviously, this does not apply to orphaned persons, lest I offend someone with my insensitivity again. I assure you all I am more insensitive in person.

Sadly this is true, we have allowed a system of career recipients. However, once again, society, or better yet the church should be holding the families responsible. If we adhered to principles, the Bible says, let him that not work, not eat. Everyone, with the exception of the most challenged are able to do some sort of work.

It's ridiculous to punish a child for the shortcomings of a parent(s)

It's ridiculous to punish me for the shortcomings of someone else. Also, do we only define family as parents and children?

We do not limit parents as the only family. I know I have and am helping raise my grandchildren. However there are limitations for all of us. Humanity demands that we stand up for the helpless, whether it is the old, young or infirm. If you choose to live in a society, it is and will be part of it. I am sad to see that you are so jaded in 32 years. It is easiest to stand in judgement when not faced with those issues directly.

 

[WTJ]

I haven't read all the data...but does this "Federal Money" include all federal expenditures in the state, or just federal welfare assistance?

For instance, if it includes all fed money, a state like Oklahoma, with 3 Air Force bases, a huge Army base, the ammo plant, FAA logistics center etc... is going to look a lot different than a state like Massachusetts with fewer large fed installations....and it would skew the numbers for those who want to paint the picture that "Red States are taking all the handouts."

Yep. That was exactly my take on the map. 'Course, those states really don't want the sweaties.....