New spin on the welfare debate.

[CZB1962]

I was reading the post on drug testing welfare people and it made me think of this.

Why can we as a society not require women who receive welfare to be on a contraceptive like these implants that can be removed http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/implanon/basics/definition/PRC-20015073?

I don't want to punish people who truly need assistance, but how often do you hear about women having 3, 4 ,5 or more kids while on welfare. It sort of falls in that screw me once shame on you, screw me twice, shame on me category.

I am simply saying that if you want to take our money you should be required to not make the situation worse. If you don't want to be implanted fine, then don't accept our money. If you get back on your feet and want more children, then it can be removed and you are free to procreate at will. Just don't do it on our dime.

I know some of the women's right groups would probably have a cow, but ironically these would probably be the same groups that want us to pay for abortions with our tax money.

I am not trying to pick on women, but until men start shooting out babies, it is kind of a one sided issue. Fair, no. Reality, yes.

 

[spec4]

My solution would be that there is no increase in welfare if you continue to reproduce. Might induce more leg crossing.

 

[Lex Concord]

As with the drug testing thread, the solution is not to fix the government intrusion and botching of the situation with more government intrusion and more (likely) botching.

Find the root cause and eliminate it. Even if a requirement for drug testing or forced sterilization could save some money (which is arguable), it is a drop in the bucket and a pointless savings.

It is not some foreign foe, but welfare (SNAP, EBT, Medicare, SS, eieio) that will bring this country to its knees.

 

[ruger1800]

Spay and neuter, place existing children in orphanage, this would break the cycle.

 

[CZB1962]

As with the drug testing thread, the solution is not to fix the government intrusion and botching of the situation with more government intrusion and more (likely) botching.

Find the root cause and eliminate it. Even if a requirement for drug testing or forced sterilization could save some money (which is arguable), it is a drop in the bucket and a pointless savings.

It is not some foreign foe, but welfare (SNAP, EBT, Medicare, SS, eieio) that will bring this country to its knees.

The root cause seems to be laziness and a sense of entitlement, but short of cutting off all welfare and letting people starve, I don't know how to eliminate that.

Do you realize that in some cases the whole goal of many poor women is to have enough children that they get full welfare benefits? I knew a woman who was thrilled that she was pregnant with her 4th child because now she would get a bigger apartment and more food stamps.

I think if you limited the number of children being introduced to the welfare system you would cut down on the short term cost, but also and more importantly, reduce the cycle of generational welfare.

To be clear, this is not "forced sterilization" which would be permanent. This would be required contraceptives WHILE you choose to accept welfare money. Big difference.

 

[Kutnupe14]

FYI, it's a myth that women on welfare try to have children so they can have increased benefits. Not only due to tge math being very obvious, but also in tge fact that caps on children in other states haven't stopped welfare moms from continuing to have children.

 

[CZB1962]

FYI, it's a myth that women on welfare try to have children so they can have increased benefits. Not only due to tge math being very obvious, but also in tge fact that caps on children in other states haven't stopped welfare moms from continuing to have children.

OK, lets assume that's true (I can only go by what I was told). This is even more reason why implants are a good option. If as you say they get less per child then it proves that irresponsibility is causing the problem.

I don't think anyone can argue that a woman on welfare having more kids cost the taxpayers more money. Food stamps, school lunch, school books, after school programs, future welfare recipients....the list goes on.

Lets assume that 100 women on welfare have 3 children each while on welfare, that's 300 additional children on welfare. Now lets say that 50% of those kids go on welfare themselves, that's 150 . If each of them have 3 kids we are at 450. If again 50% (225) go on welfare and have 3 kids we are at 675.

This is in just 3 generations which can be as little as 60 years. We are already approaching the point where there are more people riding in the wagon that pulling it. If this level of reproduction holds anywhere close to accurate, I don't see how the system can survive.

This is not meant to be a scientific analysis but just to point out that every child born into welfare stands a good chance of staying there and adding exponentially to the problem.

 

[Whitsettd8]

Make them put in 30-40 hours of community service to collect; no work no pay.

 

[Double T]

I was reading the post on drug testing welfare people and it made me think of this.

Why can we as a society not require women who receive welfare to be on a contraceptive like these implants that can be removed http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/implanon/basics/definition/PRC-20015073?

I don't want to punish people who truly need assistance, but how often do you hear about women having 3, 4 ,5 or more kids while on welfare. It sort of falls in that screw me once shame on you, screw me twice, shame on me category.

I am simply saying that if you want to take our money you should be required to not make the situation worse. If you don't want to be implanted fine, then don't accept our money. If you get back on your feet and want more children, then it can be removed and you are free to procreate at will. Just don't do it on our dime.

I know some of the women's right groups would probably have a cow, but ironically these would probably be the same groups that want us to pay for abortions with our tax money.

I am not trying to pick on women, but until men start shooting out babies, it is kind of a one sided issue. Fair, no. Reality, yes.

The implants have been shown to increase the risk of cervical cancer, which is compounded by having multiple sex partners (something to do with protein markers in semen...kind of like an allergic reaction).

There is no simple solution. Sex ed doesn't work. No smoking campaigns don't work. D.A.R.E. hasn't worked.

People need to **** up and learn from their mistakes.

 

[5.56'aholic]

People need to **** up and learn from their mistakes.

I agree, but not even our government learns from their mistakes. The root cause is a lack of personal responsibility and any semblance of morals in both society and personally. What use to be looked at as shameful is now fully acceptable, even encouraged. A quick reality check of who our current youth look up to as role models is a strong starting point.

 

[ruger1800]

Never ending cycle, those raised in a welfare environment continue the cycle, sterilize existing welfare rats, raise the children in a orphanage with a structured environment to end the cycle.

 

[Leo]

Make them put in 30-40 hours of community service to collect; no work no pay.

+1

This was the only poor relief program that ever worked. The C.C.C. and the W.P.A projects kept people from starving, preserved their personal honor and dignity, gave the taxpayers something of value, and automatically phased themselves out as the economy re energized.



My DOG has produced more "shovel ready" jobs than the current administration!

 

[CZB1962]

+1

This was the only poor relief program that ever worked. The C.C.C. and the W.P.A projects kept people from starving, preserved their personal honor and dignity, gave the taxpayers something of value, and automatically phased themselves out as the economy re energized.



My DOG has produced more "shovel ready" jobs than the current administration!

The problem I see here is that back then it was FAMILIES. Now it is single mothers that make up a large percentage of welfare. People will argue that they can't work because there is no where for the kids to be.

I don't have all the answers, but stopping welfare moms from having more kids seems like a step in the right direction to me.

 

[Lex Concord]

The root cause seems to be laziness and a sense of entitlement, but short of cutting off all welfare and letting people starve, I don't know how to eliminate that.

Do you realize that in some cases the whole goal of many poor women is to have enough children that they get full welfare benefits? I knew a woman who was thrilled that she was pregnant with her 4th child because now she would get a bigger apartment and more food stamps.

I think if you limited the number of children being introduced to the welfare system you would cut down on the short term cost, but also and more importantly, reduce the cycle of generational welfare.

To be clear, this is not "forced sterilization" which would be permanent. This would be required contraceptives WHILE you choose to accept welfare money. Big difference.

Laziness and the sense of entitlement are not the root cause. They are merely symptoms. They are subsidized by your tax dollars through welfare.

Government welfare programs that fuel laziness and a sense of entitlement are that which need to be eliminated. That was my point.

While I understand your intent to ramp it down, I don't know that it could be ramped down quickly enough to prevent full-blown default.

 

[ChrisK]

The problem I see here is that back then it was FAMILIES. Now it is single mothers that make up a large percentage of welfare. People will argue that they can't work because there is no where for the kids to be.

Have these women do community service including working at child care centers taking care of the kids. No work, No money!

 

[.458socomhunter]

A better solution to the previous mentioned contraception:

https://online.zoetis.com/US/EN/Products/pdf/PI 2013_Improvest.pdf

Unfortunately, only approved in pork. But, with two doses would work as well.

 

[MisterChester]

Make them put in 30-40 hours of community service to collect; no work no pay.

Isnt that working in a sense? They'd be doing community service for a check. It wouldn't be community service if they were paid in any way.

 

[SERparacord]

Do away with welfare.

 

[BogWalker]

Do away with welfare.

Not as easy as it sounds. They're used to just getting fed by others. They aren't going to go and be productive, they'll just start taking from those who they see as having more than them. Ending welfare cold turkey would surely mean a massive spike in crime.

 

[Whitsettd8]

I'll just leave this here.