Rick Santorum To Single Mothers: Government Paternity Tests Or No Welfare , page 4

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 31 times

reply posted on 9-3-2012 @ 01:28 PM by silo13

reply to post by youdidntseeme

Yep, my fave avatar on ATS, and yeah, I"m pretty amazed we're (collectively) doing so well as a group going over this info. I know I'm learning tons - but - apparently I've a long way to go! (Which is all good)! And yeah, there's a lot a 'issue' here. Old news or not - a lot a issue.

*Going back to dig for more facts*

peace
gracie

reply posted on 9-3-2012 @ 01:31 PM by Annee

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I'm just grabbing random sources that are easy to grab. As far as I know the laws are uniform across all 50 states, because all 50 states submit to the Title IV requirements of the Federal Mandate.

Here is some information on legal vs. biological fathers, and on forced genetic testing...

So is this saying the government is going to pay all the legal costs and DNA testing?

What if you are a working mother? What if you don't want to be on welfare or don't qualify?

Is the government still going to pay all legal costs and DNA testing?

Or do you have to be a complete loser to get any help?

reply posted on 9-3-2012 @ 01:31 PM by silo13

reply to post by Annee

Personally I support modern style self-contained orphanages (similar to a boarding school) - - - that each city be responsible for their own - - and have as many as needed (not just one).

Culture (and generational poverty is a culture) - - is the hardest thing in the world to change. Only removing a child from this culture - - putting them in modern style self-contained orphanages would create the change they need.

Parents can go into "step" work camps. Lots of desert out there. They can live in "Tent Cities" and be given options to work themselves out and get their children back if that is what they want.

That has got to be one of the scariest opinions I've read to date on ATS.

Please, don't take that as an insult, only an observation.

I'm a little too gobsmacked to say much more at this point other than to note: If you and the Government have your way I think we'll be all seeing just this...'solution'...sooner than we expect.

peace

edit on 9-3-2012 by silo13 because: bbc

reply posted on 9-3-2012 @ 01:33 PM by Benevolent Heretic

reply to post by silo13

Ricky's at it again. Turning away voters, that is. How much farther can he go before he falls off the right side of the political spectrum? He's getting pretty close to the edge.

reply posted on 9-3-2012 @ 01:34 PM by getreadyalready

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I'm just grabbing random sources that are easy to grab. As far as I know the laws are uniform across all 50 states, because all 50 states submit to the Title IV requirements of the Federal Mandate.

Here is some information on legal vs. biological fathers, and on forced genetic testing...

So is this saying the government is going to pay all the legal costs and DNA testing?

What if you are a working mother? What if you don't want to be on welfare or don't qualify?

Is the government still going to pay all legal costs and DNA testing?

Or do you have to be a complete loser to get any help?

The government does pay the costs of DNA testing, but this is only for people applying for Child Support Enforcement through the state. This isn't for people that already have some private agreement. BUT, if someone applies for cash assistance or medicare or medicaid, then they are required to cooperate with the state's child support enforcement program, and their private agreement is over-ridden. Of course, no one is ever required to ask for state assistance, but if they do, then they must comply.

reply posted on 9-3-2012 @ 01:49 PM by Annee

Originally posted by silo13
reply to post by Annee

Personally I support modern style self-contained orphanages (similar to a boarding school) - - - that each city be responsible for their own - - and have as many as needed (not just one).

Culture (and generational poverty is a culture) - - is the hardest thing in the world to change. Only removing a child from this culture - - putting them in modern style self-contained orphanages would create the change they need.

Parents can go into "step" work camps. Lots of desert out there. They can live in "Tent Cities" and be given options to work themselves out and get their children back if that is what they want.

That has got to be one of the scariest opinions I've read to date on ATS.

Please, don't take that as an insult, only an observation.

I'm a little too gobsmacked to say much more at this point other than to note: If you and the Government have your way I think we'll be all seeing just this...'solution'...sooner than we expect.

peace

But - responsible people are going to be responsible.

And I'm not even talking about economic levels. There are many proud people under the poverty line that don't want handouts and find ways to take care of their families. There are also the wealthy people who do everything they can to leech off others.

What is most important? The children. How do you break the cycle of "generational welfare and poverty"?

Is there honestly anyway besides removing people from this culture - - - putting them in a safe - working/educational environment? Which is why I specify "Self Contained".

Not really that much different then Oprah's girls school. Where she took the children out of their culture - - and put them in an amazing facility - - and told them it was up to them to work hard - be responsible - - - if they wanted a better life.

reply posted on 9-3-2012 @ 01:52 PM by Carseller4

If you have a baby and "Uncle Sam" is the father, that is incest. That is pretty disgusting.

Name the father, get him for as much support as possible, if it is not enough, then allow welfare to make up the difference. I don't see the big deal with this.

For the women out there who think they are "independent" and can raise a child on their own. FINE...do it...more power to you. But not on my dime.

reply posted on 9-3-2012 @ 01:52 PM by SeenMyShare

This has actually been in effect for at least 32 years that I know positively, at least in the state of Pennsylvania! I had to have DNA done on my son's father to get a few months worth of food stamps till I got on my feet.

reply posted on 9-3-2012 @ 01:59 PM by Annee

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
This has actually been in effect for at least 32 years that I know positively, at least in the state of Pennsylvania! I had to have DNA done on my son's father to get a few months worth of food stamps till I got on my feet.

But - did he do it voluntarily?

DNA testing needs to be mandatory and simple to get. Not years of courts and legal maneuvering.

Does a single working mother really have the ability to take off work to go to court hearings? And how many court hearings?

Is her job more important then trying to go through the court system to get a dead beat dad tested - - - who probably won't pay his child support anyway?

reply posted on 9-3-2012 @ 02:00 PM by Annee

Originally posted by Carseller4
But not on my dime.

Screw the child.

Who cares if a child starves or has a place to sleep at night.

As long as you do.

reply posted on 9-3-2012 @ 02:03 PM by Annee

Originally posted by getreadyalready
The government does pay the costs of DNA testing, but this is only for people applying for Child Support Enforcement through the state.

OK. So courts can force a man to take a DNA test?

If the mother is working - - how does that affect the courts?

Does the mother have to take off work and attend court proceedings?

reply posted on 9-3-2012 @ 02:05 PM by babybunnies

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Republicans...the party of small government.

They'll get the government out of your lives...unless you are a women...and then the government is in your pants monitoring your vagina.

How are there still women who vote Republican???

You forgot. Unless you're a woman OR you're GAY.

It's amazing to me that Women, Pot Smokers, LGBT community members, non Catholics, or anyone making less than $1 million a year still votes Republican.

reply posted on 9-3-2012 @ 02:11 PM 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.

reply posted on 9-3-2012 @ 02:11 PM by getreadyalready

reply to post by Annee

Does a single working mother really have the ability to take off work to go to court hearings? And how many court hearings?

Is her job more important then trying to go through the court system to get a dead beat dad tested - - - who probably won't pay his child support anyway?

There is an issue of class involved as well. And culture. And by culture, I mean "race" but in a politically correct way.

The single-working mother, that doesn't have time to take off work and go to a bunch of court hearings, is not the same mother listing 30 different possible dead-beat fathers. The mother you describe knows exactly who the father is, when the baby was conceived, where the father works, and the father more than likely is also working, and he may not voluntarily cooperate or pay, but they are going to get him one way or another....... eventually. The more the mother can cooperate and attend hearings and assist, the faster the proceedings move along, and this is just an unfortunate side-effect of limited state resources and budgeting.

The type of child support case Santorum is talking about is a mother, with 3 or more illegitimate babies from 3 or more unidentified fathers, the mother isn't working, isn't on birth control, and is continually having additional unprotected sex and is perfectly comfortable with the state paying for additional babies. In fact, if she is on cash assistance, then additional babies means more money in her pocket, and the babies are raising each other by now anyway, she isn't doing any "mothering." The child support money is going towards a drug habit, hair, and nails, so she can continue to attract more dead-beats to her back door.

What I just said is very ugly, but it is also extremely true. You would be appalled at the statements made by these mothers. They "need their money" so they can get "blazed." I've heard it more times than I can count! They might have gotten a big tax settlement last month, but this month they're already claiming they can't buy groceries. When you ask what happened to the $15k from last month (making no suggestions or accusations, just an innocent question), the response is always, "It's none of your business if I got some rims! You just need to get me my money!"

There are about 4 different types of child support clients. 1. There are professional/mature couples trying to work things out for the kids. 2. There are professional/mature couples using the kids as ammunition and only concerned about themselves. 3. There are deadbeats that actually care about the kids, and 4. there are deadbeats and losers that only care about themselves.

There are some unfortunate stories from group 1 where one parent or the other gets screwed by the system, but they just roll with it for the kids sake. These are the most difficult ones to justify in my mind, it is a shame we can't fix the system.

There are many, many unfortunate stories from group 2 where the parent's need some sense slapped into them.

There are many, many unfortunate stories from group 3, and these are the stories the entire system was built to help, and these are the folks that are willing and eager to accept help and comply and do whatever it takes, and we should be focusing all of our resources in group 3...

Then, there are the stories from group 4 that make great political fodder, are easy to stereotype, are unfortunately all too common, and they ruin the system for the other 3 groups.

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

reply posted on 9-3-2012 @ 02:12 PM by mikellmikell

The guy gets my vote. I work for aliving and am surrounded by those who don't. They think I'm an elite because Imake a lot of money. I go to Mexico or Hawaii for vacation every couple of years. they are on vacation 24-7 and go to Mard Gras and several trips out of town a year. Keep making it harder It will make us strong

reply posted on 9-3-2012 @ 02:21 PM by Carseller4

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Carseller4
But not on my dime.

Screw the child.

Who cares if a child starves or has a place to sleep at night.

As long as you do.

If the child's own mother doesn't care, why should I?

Go after the child's father, not me, is all I am saying.

reply posted on 9-3-2012 @ 02:55 PM by stirling

Just read this OP. all i can say is WTF!
Where does he think we get our best troops from?
We need all these fatherless boys and girls to join the services where they get both father and mother till they are
either wia or kia.....the military needs these volunteers who are easy to break down having low esteem to start with, and they are so grateful to be allowed to die for their country if nessessary....
Much more wars on our plate, and well be paying single moms to pop em out for us!

reply posted on 9-3-2012 @ 04:12 PM by DerepentLEstranger

lol
one would think the repugnicans with these out and out psychopaths for candidates
were trying to get barry o an easy win

but hey y'all, keep wasting time and braincells on this carnival

sigh even though i'm an anarchist
and do not give a rat's a** or a flying F***
whose sitting on the throne at 1600 penn ave.

i'll make it easy for the sheeple *COUGH* i mean, voters

PLAY IT SMART.
VOTE FOR THE LESSER EVIL.
VOTE FOR RON PAUL.

and go right a ahead and steal it.

reply posted on 9-3-2012 @ 04:35 PM by Titen-Sxull

reply to post by silo13

Santorum is about as anti-woman as a candidate can possibly get, it seems like every one of his stances and policies is designed to assert the man's dominance over the woman. The fact that this guy is one of the final Republicans in the running for nomination frightens me a great deal. We're talking about a guy who says that if his daughter was raped he would tell her the child was a gift from God and force her to have it, any decent human should reject Santorum on principle.

reply posted on 9-3-2012 @ 04:43 PM by WeRpeons

Something has to be done about kids having babies. I can't stand Santorum, but something has to be done to pressure kids to think before they have kids out of wedlock. A lot of these kids are growing up having a mother and father who are too immature to take upon the responsibility and discipline it takes to raise a child.

It's definitely a problem that isn't as simple to rectify as what Santorum makes it out to be.