Rick Santorum To Single Mothers: Government Paternity Tests Or No Welfare

reply to post by Annee


not everyone.....not most.... and that is very telling
have nice day (i mean that)

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
reply to post by Annee

 

not everyone.....not most.... and that is very telling
have nice day

Thank you.

Most? Not a word that can be used lightly. I try to use the word "many".

As said: "One is the most important number. Everything starts with One"

Well, for people I've met, the man is on the run, doesnt want to accept responsibility and doesnt leave a forwarding address. So, knowing his name is doesnt mean very much. Its just postering with the voters, doesn't mean much at all. Abandonment, is still abandonment.

reply to post by silo13


I don't really get what the point of the Government knowing who the father is. What would they do with that information? And how would it effect someone on welfare?

reply to post by Rockpuck


I believe the idea is to get child support from them. And no doubt putting the DNA they collect into a database when they are done testing

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Rockpuck

 

I believe the idea is to get child support from them. And no doubt putting the DNA they collect into a database when they are done testing

Absolutely! Man does it to one - - he'll do it to another.

Time to stop the irresponsibility of the runaway sperm donor.

Either people care about people or they don't. Simple. Single mothers pay taxes too, I just want to know where will our taxes go if not for the people. But then again maybe I have my priorities wrong and should be as self serving as possible and should show it by complaining whenever possible about how unhappy I am to pay taxes to help people I care nothing about? I know of people having a hard time, I've given a stranger asking for change twenty bucks, he thought I'd made a mistake, I didn't have any change but I gave him what I had when I had it, the same with a man who came to me asking for help because his family needed wood for heat and some shmuck ripped him off 50 dollars for a log of wood that wasn't even his, I could not get his money back for him so I gave him 60 dollars out of my own pocket. I myself am a single mother, not on welfare, don't have a job, can't get a babysitter, and job opportunities are scarce. Should I be jailed because I don't have a boyfriend/husband? Should I be mistreated because I'm not raking in money? Should I have my son taken away from me because his mother hasn't got the pot of gold everyone's after? We are not starving by any means, we live in unfavorable conditions, but our lives are not in danger will you still kick us when we are down? Will you try to persuade my son that I deserve to be hated because I can't magically make life simple for us? I just hope that all these people who want to see others miserable never fall into their own trap, God would not like it if I were to be happy about the misfortunes of others, the idea sickens me that religious people would rather see a child go hungry so that they can save themselves a few dollars. I don't expect pity, I expect to be hated, you can bring me down, but I will not stay down.

Hey welfare and food stamps are not fundamental rights, nor are they entitlements. If the state is financially supporting a child through these benefit programs then it has a vested financial interest in the proper financial support of the child. If Mom doesn't have the ability to pursue support for her family, but instead attempts to rely on the state for these needs then the state should be entitled to pursue reimbursement from the father. A DNA test starts the process.

While I dont agree with Santorum on much, on this issue he is right on.

reply to post by silo13


So.....the woman has to identify the father, and then the state can make the deadbeat pay child support, which could be enough that the woman no longer needs tax dollars to support her children? Oh, the horror! (sarcasm)

So, women that go out and deliberately have more kids JUST to get more welfare will have to show who's fathering the kids? As in, show their own personal responsibility? When they ask for money that other people earn? Say it isn't so!

Sorry, but if these women want tax money, they should not have an issue stating who the father of the child is. Last time I checked, you had to show a birth certificate for the kids, anyway, which SHOULD list the father. If they don't even KNOW who it is (cases of rape excluded), then they have issues.

reply to post by silo13


You need to understand what the issue is.

They want to build a database of fathers to track the underground community. What you don't realize is that there are thugs and drug distributors running the streets with no permanent address or desire to have a permanent address. They are actively involved in fighting "the man" and they raise funds by organized crime and drug dealing. They impregnate women for fun and profit. A single mother gets tons of money from the taxpayers -- another way to stick it to "the man". Why do anything else? Black liberation involves active street soldiers and women willing to support their cause.

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by g146541

 

Plus if Mommy is selling that many admission tickets to the underpants park, maybe there should be some monitors there.

Though that really made me laugh I have to ask you Why?

What about the men going for the ride?

If I choose to open my 'pleasure park' to anyone and everyone - that's my right, like it or not. (You know, the whole 'it's my body' argument)...

If children are the byproduct of my...lust(?) , what difference is there between ME and the sperm donor? Can't get a babe without the one or the other.

AND - Facts are it's NO ONE'S BUSINESS but Mommy and Daddy's.
*snip*

If they choose to ask for other people to support their children, then they have made it other people's business. You can't have it both ways.

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

I'm actually thinking this is a good idea. I have no idea how he'd implement it.
But getting dead beat dads to pay for kids may stop them from mass procreating
tons of kids who will just end up on welfare, foodstamps and getting free lunches
at school ... all paid for by the tax payer.

At the cost of a woman's privacy? Who she takes into her bedroom or not?
No no no no - that price is FAR TOO HIGH.
Let's figure out another solution that doesn't RAPE A WOMAN'S PRIVACY!
And the privacy of the men for that matter.
peace

Nope, again, if she asks for the money others earn, to pay for her children, she can cooperate in making sure the dad's help pay the support. SO sick of "privacy" being used as an excuse for everything. If the serial killer performs in private, should we stop prosecuting them? These comments are not recent, and were part of welfare overhaul that was LONG overdue, because of massive fraud and corruption, mostly on the part of the people collecting. FYI, I have been a single mom (after a divorce), and struggled, and could not GET any help, because the system was so overloaded. That was before the reform. I had a job, full time, and could barely get by, and didn't "qualify" for even food stamps. The dad WAS known, and was supposed to pay support, and didn't till jail was threatened. THAT is why the dads are to be named. Stop pretending this is all some attack against women, or the children. The mother should be responsible for her children, and that includes knowing who the father is, and demanding he pay his share of support. Oh, even if the guy is abusive, this still works. The dad (or mom) that is paying does NOT have to know the address of the recipient, because it's all filtered through state offices. So toss out that excuse, too.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by Xeven

 

So they don't want to give women birth control, BUT

they want to force you to have babies you may not be able to take care of.

But then they don't want to provide welfare for people who now has a starving baby.

But oh we should have prayer back in school so we can learn what Christ would want, but none of them follow.

edit on 9-3-2012 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)

Lat time I checked, Jesus didn't want people out sleeping around and not having any consequences for it. Plus, no one is forcing people to go out and have sex, get pregnant, then demand that other people pay for their behavior. If someone can't afford to support a child, they should think about that before sex, not later. If they want birth control, they can pay for it.

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
reply to post by Annee

 

Actually no, and once I was off food stamps he stopped paying support. The state got it while I had food stamps, and my son got................. drumroll please................. $5 total in child support in 18 years. If you aren't on some sort of assistance there is no help to fight for child support.

The state should have been able to make him pay. My first marriage and divorce were in Texas, and they would literally JAIL non-custodial parents that refused to pay. It took years to get support started, and years after she turned 18 to pay it off, but it was finally done. Contact the state atty. gen., and see if they can't help. If he's in another state, try that one as well. They can be made to pay later, too. Can take time, but they should be able to pursue it. Didn't cost me a dime to get mine, though it was a good 9 years past her 18th before it was all paid. Even if you don't need the money now, if you can get it, it could go to a college fund or something.

My mother wasn't the greatest person in the world, but she kept my fathers identity hidden for a reason. She got welfare and at some point the laws changed and she had to give his name and they went after him for child support. About 20 years later I live in fear every day of this man finding me. I am not going to go into details, and I do NOT support women who don't know who the father is, or have kids by multiple fathers, but sometime knowing who the father is, is dangerous for the child. Some men do crazy things when forced to pay child support.

Edit to say, it's a common belief that women can have more children to get more money from welfare. If you are on welfare already and have another child you CAN NOT get money for any additional child. It has been that way since 1997 Clinton made that law. However a man can have childern with multiple women and and all those kids can get welfare but the same is not true for mothers.

reply to post by XXX777


huh???
you sure about that one??

from what I've observed it's more like this...
the economy sucks, kids grow up and want to move out on their own. only the cost of living is too high for them to afford it on their 7-9 dollar an hour job. so, well, they have a choice, partner up with a friend of the same sex, get a two bedroom, share the expense, and probably be labled as gay....find themselves a girlfriend/boyfriend to shack up with, or well just get married.. more often than not, they shack up, since no one wants to be thought of as gay and partnering up with the opposite sex has some pretty good side benefits, ya know, home cooked food, car matenaince, and well...sex!! so well with the two of the working, hey they are doing fine, but then well, the sex leads to baby number one! and mom drops out of the workforce leaving them with only one income. so, they go plodding down to social services because they really do need help!! only dad is still working, and because he is earning a little bit of money, well, they don't qualify for much of anything!!! but...they sure as heck can't pay the rent, keep the car on the road, have a warm house, and have food on the table too, and do you have any idea how much diapers and formula costs? and let's not forget, the baby's six week check up is coming up and none of them have insurance!! so well, they start arguing over just what in their budget needs to go out the window, each with a different perspective as to what is more important...eventually they break up....
she goes back to the welfare office to ask again for help!! which this time she gets, and they track down the dad and set up his support payments (now, keep in mind, these two people weren't making enough money to support the three of them before they split up....now, they really need more money, since they are trying to hold down two households! and they put her into a job training program. so, well, a little, very little bit of time goes on, and mom finds herself feeling like she's hanging from the edge of a cliff, between school, the kid, and everything else, well, she's not getting enough sleep, she's up and running just about all day, and she is dead tired! while dad is finding that no matter how little mom thinks that child support payment is, it's big enough to make it so he still cannot pay his rent, have a nice warm apartment, food in his stomach, and keep his car running.... and well, they will either work things out and get back together (very, very, quietly so welfare doesn't find out) or they'll will find another partner to share in the responsibility. and well.....eventually, baby number two will come along!!! then three, then four, till mom decides that getting her tubes tied might be a good idea!!
ya there's are some deadbeat dads, there are some women that have no moral integrity.....but there are ALOT of people who are just trying to find a way to live in an economy that has been so screwed up by gov't intervention that there is no way that many people can live independently and stay above water!!!

you make it sound like the majority of the welfare recipients are black, the fathers are drug dealers and gansters, and they are all lowlifes!!!

know one couple that broke up simply because they had a child that was born with a birth defect, was hospitalized quite often, had to have some very expensive medicine, and well....he had a fairly good job, but not that danged good!! they were drowning in medical bills!! couldn't afford the medicine, and it was the social service dept that was encouraging the separate!! that way, mom wouldn't have to include his income and they could help them!!! of course, dad was hit hard when they started taking out the child support...but the baby at least got to live!!!

I've known alot of people where dad was still in the home, working, mom was staying at home (because well, 7-9 dollar an hour jobs won't pay for child care anymore either!!!), and were on food stamps or hud, or whatever.....

and, I've also watch something that I could only describe as musical partners, where they will shack up for awhile, till social service is tipped off, then well, the man flies away, to another friends home, and round and round they go...from friend to friend.....

I'd say the vast majority of the problem doesn't have much to do with the people's morality whatsoever, but rather, it has more to do with a social service system that has a giant gap in it's eligibility criteria that leaves some hard working families starving and shivering while they are pitching in so others can eat shrimp and turn their homes into saunas in the middle of a northeastern winter!! in which case, I guess you can blame the gov'ts policies for any immorality you may seen within them!!

reply to post by dawnstar


Uhhhhhhh...... 'bortion?

No. Really. God doesn't care about the evil offspring.

reply to post by dawnstar


Same sex room mates are gay? That is laughable. Unless you think college dorm rooms all across America are just bursting at the seams with gayness.

''Y'allz gay!''

What?!!!

Two guys share an apartment. File it under missile anus.

Originally posted by Annee
Even if the mother knows exactly who the father is - - - if he did not put his name on the birth certificate - - - the burden of proof falls on the woman.

As a married woman, with my first child, I filled out the birth certificate paperwork, and he wasn't even there at the time. His name was still on it, though. Isn't up to the dad to do that; the mom can at the hospital.

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
not trying to be rude but sounds like she married so she wouldnt have to work
shes her own person its not anybody elses responsibility to take care of her
it is foolish to ever become that dependent upon anyone else
and it most definitely was a choice she liked the idea of being a stay at home mom in the modern era (and why not it would be the best of both worlds)

um, sorry, but no. It isn't irresponsible to be a stay-at-home mother. I have been a working mom, and a stay-at-home mom, at different times in my life. As a single working mom (for a time), I had to struggle to get by, and time with my daughter was limited. Worked awhile in the second marriage, and we figured out that, with the cost of daycare, extra gas, work clothing (professional stuff), meals for work, higher tax bracket, etc, we ended up with a whopping $150-200 a month extra. It simply was NOT worth it. Someone else raising the kids, practically, tons of extra stress, and 12 hours a day GONE from my life, for that little? No, it isn't always a choice. Even when it is, it can be the BEST choice, financially AND for the children. Kids cared for at home, instead of daycares, etc, are better off. No, not all can do that, but those that can should NOT be looked down on.

Originally posted by iamlizzyb
reply to post by sirhumperdink

 

WOW, married so she wouldn't have to work? They met in middle school, and married at graduation.. Her plan was to go into the military and pursue that career, but after they were married he wouldn't allow it... He would not allow her to work, and beat her if she pressured him about it.. She didn't ask or expect help, we offered, as a good family would.

A little FYI, she was on the pill and didn't want kids until her career was established. Things happen, why should the woman and children suffer for it.

You live in a world of delusion, You need to to pop this little bubble your in, and wake up to the real world. It is not as easy as you think especially in an abusive situation

edit on 10-3-2012 by iamlizzyb because: (no reason given)

Glad she's out of that, and no, she wasn't wrong to be with her kids, even if she HAD made that decision herself.

Originally posted by dawnstar
I believe that maybe they changed the laws while clinton was in office, and now, once the child is three or something like that, they expect mom to go to work...they pay for the childcare, they'll pay for the transportation, they will even pay for the clothes you wear to work and meals while you at work...
but, well, even with all that help, it can rather hard to be mom and employee at the same time!
maybe it's not so much that they are looking for a free ride, but rather just a way to take some of the chaos our of their lives....and conning someone into helping them create another child well, that kind of is a short term solution?

but, it in no way is a free ride!!! look at how some of you two parent families are functioning when both parents are working!! me and my hubby did it, it wasn't fun, more not fun for me than him, but still...
8 hours of work, two hours of travel time, helping kids with homework, dinner, dishes, laundry, well, in the end, I was running on about four hours sleep....
free ride like heck!! they just want something that will work and not leave them feeling like zombies!

edit on 10-3-2012 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)

No, being a single mom can be very hard, and it isn't something all CHOOSE to be, either, that find themselves in that situation. Those aren't the kind that abuse the system. There are some that do, though, and making them more responsible isn't a bad thing. Someone I know, when getting food stamps (while working), encountered a woman in the waiting area who was, quite literally, making crack deals on her expensive smart phone, and joking on the same phone about how her latest baby was getting her more money. THAT is the kind these regulations are needed for! Know what you mean about two working parents, too. Did that a while, and NO rest. Ended up quitting, because it simply wasn't worth the little that was left over. With the kids now, no daycare expense, and can even home school. Far less stress on all, and happier kids.

Originally posted by Yeats
Seems to me that people need to learn to: "Keep it in Their Pants". It is really a pretty simple concept, If you cant pay for a child and raise it properly then stop #ing around (this goes for both men and women) , or even better don't start in the first place.

YES! So tired of women claiming they are being "forced" into this and that, when they CHOOSE to go out and have sex, and then whine that there are often consequences.

Originally posted by jrod
Free birth control and resources at schools for information on obtaining birth control might help. Better and realistic sex education as well. The bible thumper's version of sex ed needs to stay in the church. Schools need to have science backed sex education presented in a manner that will capture the youth's attention. That is a start.

We have had that for a long time, and the teen pregnancy rates keep rising. Time to go back to the old school method, of telling kids not to sleep around.

reply to post by XXX777


what???
the danged christain right doesn't even want to chip into insurance pools anymore if they decide to cover the pill!!!
and here you are promoting abortion!!!
I'd run and hide in a hole if I were you, you never know, today might be the day that they decide that all those pro-abortion people should be rounded up and set to guatanomo or something!!!

and, if you has read the post, which maybe you did, you would have noticed I had listed other reasons why it would be more beneficial to shack up with the pretty girl/handsome man than to shack up with your best friend!! ya know, someone do to your laundry, someone to cook your meals,someone to take out the garbage, someone to fix the car....not to mention, the main perk, someone to have sex with...
and actually the gay statement was mention from something I observed at work.....one of my coworkers moved in with one of his male friends, and soon after, the rumors started flying around that his friend was gay, then he was gay.....never mind that the coworker just managed to get another coworker pregnant....na, they were gay!!!

the separation of roles, the engineering of economies so that one or both sexes can't live independantly have been a long standing policy put into place to enforce the status of marriage in society....

it's one I have a problem with...to me, it seems it would be better for young people to spend a few years on their own and develope some self confidence that yes, they can handle it...before they get married and start having babies!!!

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


I can't help but agree with your old fashioned common sense. Those girls back in the days used to hold an aspirin between their knees and that was as good as contraception. Problem is Bobby Ray figured out he could sneak around the back. Oh well. Found an extra hole too. Peek-a-boo!!