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

reply to post by Annee


Off the top of my head, less flow, less acne and less cramps are the ones I can think of. I am not a girl, so I can't say I know these things. But these were some of the medical reasons for being on the pill I remember being told to me by my female friends.

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.

reply to post by Yeats

Yes yes, because people that are taught to keep it in their pants do so much better than people who are taught to use it responsibly.

reply to post by iamlizzyb

if he was that bad and she knew him since middle school either this guy was the greatest actor on the face of the earth for over a decade(time?) or she knew what she was getting herself into
i stick with what i said

dudes a complete piece of # and she was at best an enabler
theres plenty of blame to go around (she made a lot of mistakes and displayed poor judgement for a long period of time and he should be shot)
plenty of women fall into a situation like this ....and just as many or more know whats in their best interest and get out
this didnt happen overnight did it?

dont care that its your sister (but you do big time right?) i dont know you i dont pick sides.... this is just how i see it
(you failed to mention several crucial details initially instead making it sound like she CHOSE to be a stay at home mom ....there are a lot of gold diggers out there my accusation had a solid basis and im still not convinced it wasnt the case and i dont particularly care)

I've been going through the new posts since I signed off last night and I"ll try to sum them up instead of replying to each one and using up a lot of bandwidth just to repeat the same thing.

First, I'm not implying men/women should not be held accountable for their 'offspring'.

My point - NO WOMAN should be forced to reveal to anyone who she's been sleeping with in order to receive aid for her child. The government needs to STAY OUT OF PEOPLE'S BEDROOMS - as they should in same sex marriage cases, etc. I don't care if a woman wants to sleep around with 5 - 50 or 105 men - it's her choice, it's her body.

Second - This article/thread isn't about 'sexual education' or 'keeping it your pants'. It's about a Presidential candidate who (as someone else posted) is as 'anti-woman' as you can get that shows no remorse at trampling personal privacy rights because he can't design a better working system.

peace

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by LErickson

Originally posted by Annee

Leave it to someone to throw Rape into the mix

I threw it in long ago. Why is that a problem for you?
Given the specific statement Santorum made it is rather apt.
You do not agree?

Perhaps if it had been a serious post with out the

I mentioned it in several post in a very serious manner.
Not sure what your response here is about because um...it makes no sense.

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
reply to post by iamlizzyb

 

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)
....and it sounds like they were very incompatible so it really does make you think

i do not feel sorry for your sister
the welfare money should have been collected anyway and put in a fund for people who fell into a bad situation due to circumstance (if it ever came to the point she couldnt take care of them they should be provided for by the state but the mother should not be given any actual money to handle herself)

that said the system is broken and needs reformation and the people most in need are the least likely to receive assistance

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

you need to take that one up with the person who is whining and complaining that we no longer believe in god or go to church regularly so we can be taught that we are to be dependent little servants obeying the every wish of our hubbies!!! and if hubby doesn't wish his wife to be working, she shouldn't be working!!!

personally, my hubby refused for a long time to take charge of the kids so I could work....me going hungry every other day to ensure that the kids had enough food was a better solution!!!

and, coming from the over 50 club here, quite frankly, you are changing the rules in the middle of the game!!! after graduating from college I was refused job after job and finally my hubby clued me into what was going on. they weren't gonna hire me, it didn't matter if I was the best choice for the job, most experienced, or anything, since well, there was a recession at the time and there were plenty of men looking for work and they were gonna hire the men first...since well, the men had a family to support!! the women had a man in her life supporting her, or she danged well should have!!!

oh...we need religion in our lives...oh, we need to preserve the family and cut down on divorce, oh we need to eliminate abortion, oh, we need to do away with birth control... oh no!!! we can't have the males take responsibility for their kids if they don't want to!!!!
all that just leads to:
MEN WANT TO BE THE KING OF THEIR CASTLE AND THEY WANT THEIR OBEDIENT LITTLE QUEEN WORKING TIRELESSLY DAY AND NIGHT MAKING HIM HAPPY!!!

Originally posted by youdidntseeme
Let's look at this story in the proper historical context though.

In 1994

caseloads peaked at 5.1 million families in

source

More people than ever in the history of the nation were on welfare before the reform act in 1996.
The govt, both parties, both houses and the Presidency were trying desperately to ease the burden on the existing system.

This was a bipartisan effort back then, Clinton in the WH and a conservative legislature.

In 1992, Bill Clinton was elected president promising to "end welfare as we know it," and in 1994 a Republican Congress was elected that was determined to change the existing system

As stated above, the effort was bipartisan, although many liberals were unhappy with Clinton's ultimate plan.

As Clinton said in his 1994 State of the Union address

If we value work, we cannot justify a system that makes welfare more attractive than work.

Santorum's plan was a plan tht was attempting to appease President Clintons's demand that Cngress enact drastic welfare reform, reducing the strain on the govt as welfare was at it highest rate historically, and to take away the attractiveness of the welfare program and put more people to work.

It may be drastic, but at least we can understand t in the historical context.

Well nice try to end the practice of girls turning a one night stand into 20 year free ride on welfare. Yea just name the guy and we'll take the money from him and give it to you. So how does that stop her free ride? It doesn't, you limited intellegence twits. When you quit blaming the men and start charging the girls at least 1/2 of the $120,000 minimum child support and take their driving license away till it's paid, then you will see how quick this non stop generation after generation of welfare moms ends. It's really that easy, just announce this as the new way welfare works and it will end all unwed baby births. While your at it, quit giving 1/2 the mens lifetime earnings to some gold digger who married way above her earning potential just so she can get half in the divorse.

reply to post by TKDRL


the pill will also stabilize the cycle thus reducing blood loss!

I was put on it after having one of my kids because my monthly periods were taking up most of the month and leaving me anemic as all heck!

Any chance Rick is involved with the high order paedophile rings?

1. Deny the child its human rights because the mother didn't catch the name of that guy from the nightclub that night.

2. Mother is "unable to look after child", so child is taken away by CPS.

3. Pedos now have access to said child.

Santorum, although denies he's a member, but yet admires Opus Dei..when I first saw this idiot, my first reaction was "this guys Opus Dei"..Ive lived many years in Spain and have known Opus Dei familys..they all are just like him, same fashion too..nothing that this idiot says or does surprises me..but what does sickening and surprise's me, is that he's gotten this far..jeezus, America, wake the fk up!..Whats wrong with you??

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.

Why should you have to pay to live on the planet you were born on anyway?

What if the bankers decide to increase "the cost of living"? Are we supposed to play their stupid game and keep up?

Honestly, some people deserve their own enslavement...

reply to post by NuclearPaul

alot things we used to buy at the grocery store five years ago, we are no longer buying...
they have doubled in price!!! neither mine or my hubby's income potential has doubled in that amount of time.
five years....
it takes 20 or so years to raise a kid!!! what was affordable then, is no longer affordable for far too many people!
tell ya something here....
there are not many who can afford to have kids!!
and those who can, well, you ain't never gonna find them in a print shop printing...or machine shop machining, or mowing their own grass, ect.... and I imagine their kids will see themselves as too good for such work also...
so, well...
you don't think that these wealthy people are gonna want some pions around to do all those things they are "above" doing themselves???

na, they want us to have kids, weather or not we can afford them is irrelevant!! which is probably why they tolerate welfare. they would have to pay their pions more if we, the taxpayers weren't subsidizing their payroll through the welfare.

I don’t think a dna test should be mandatory. A lot of these women know who the father is and quite frankly, have decided that this man is not capable of fulfilling the role.

I don’t mind paying for a child to live if someone needs some help. I do think, however, that when you are living off of welfare that you should not be allowed to have any more children until you are financially capable of supporting the one you have. I don’t think it is unfair or unjust to ask someone who is wanting financial assistance to not bring any more children into this world until you can support the ones you already have.

I think the people who keep having children while living off the state are the ones we need to look at. These are the people who are abusing the system, and are trying to get a free ride.

I understand that mistakes are made, but once you have made the mistake, most people learn their lesson and don’t continue to make it again, unless they feel they have benefitted from it.

The lady with 16 kids is example of abusing the system. That woman is an extreme case, but why am I or anyone else paying for her 16 mistakes. One, no problem, 16? Really? You didn’t learn your lesson after the first or second? And now your holding me and every other American responsible?

These are the people I have issues with. Father or not children need to be taken care of. I feel responsible for and have no issues with helping a child, one child. Not 2 or 3 or 16.

Get the assistance you need if you make a mistake, I don’t care if you know who the father is or not. But if it happens again while you are on assistance, obviously you are not capable of being responsible for your actions and someone else needs to get involved and teach you some decision making skills.

Just saying….
Blend57

reply to post by blend57


lol....a guy that I work with managed to get a coworker pregnant..
then, she quit the job, went back to the daddy of her second child, and when the baby was born, well, she just said that daddy number two was the father...
well, he put up one heck of a fight to get the priviliedge of paying child support and taking at least partial custody of the kid...
then, one day, at leas the way he makes it out to be, she just decided she didn't want to be with daddy number one, two, or three, and well, ended up sponging off a friend with no income, no car, nothing!!! she decided that she didn't want to have the kids and all three went back to their daddies...
okay, in time she regained her senses and decided she wanted the kids back, and the guy I work with let her take the baby back....and I guess she's doing okay now...

the point I am making is that some of these dads would really want to know that they have kids, would be willing to do whatever they had to for those kids, and they are purposely being left out of the loop!!!

every man who brings a child into the world should have the right to do what is right for his offspring!
in NY, this is the law, in VA, I also believe it is. and when there is a dispute as to who daddy really is....like when mom claims it's someone it's not, or if my coworker wasn't the daddy , well, the person making the claim ends up paying for the dna test, if they are wrong, if they are right, I believe that the person making the challenge is the one paying for it...which should be plenty of incentive for mom to make the first accusation the correct one!!! in the situation where it's child support making the claim though, it's possible I imagine that the taxpayer is the one who foots the bill if someone is mistakenly indentified as the father...

simply put, the family should be expected to do whatever they can to provide for the kids, before people outside the circle are brought in to do it for them. that means mom and dad should be working at it, not just one of them....
and for those of you who think mom is getting a free ride here...
she is raising the kid, a 24/7 on call job!!!
have another coworker who is a single dad, could be earning alot more money than he is at the place we work at, but then, he found that he wasn't able to adequately provide the time and energy necessary to raise that kid....
so he quit his high paying construction job and came to where he's at....he makes less, but the hours are pretty much consistant, very little overtime, an understanding boss that doesn't gripe when the school calls him wanting to come get a sick kid, ect....
being the sole caregiver will interfer with any person's earnings! be they male or female!!!
ya, the mom gets off with a free ride?? really?? I don't think so.....

reply to post by dawnstar


I was not talking about the example you provided in your post. In that case, it sounds as if both parents were trying to make sure that the children were being taken care of. I am talking about the people in my example. The ones who continue to have children and expect the state to continue to provide services to take care of said children. The 16 kids and still on welfare. The ones who are not learning after the first 2 mistakes.

In those cases, it looks as though, not saying it is, but it looks like they are trying to get a free ride. Why else would you continue to have children when you cannot afford to take care of the ones you have?

Your coworker sounds like the type of person I wouldn't mind helping. The woman with 16 kids is the type of person I do mind helping. But even then, I have a hard time turning my back on the children when they are not to blame.

Blend57

reply to post by silo13


What about the women who have sex with like 5 men in one night and don't know who the father is? lol

reply to post by blend57


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!

reply to post by dawnstar


I understand how hard it can be, as I was a single mom and had to support myself and my child for few years on my own. I did have my parents helping me (mom babysat while I was at work), which was a god send, was on assistance, and got through it.

I also understand that when I was in this situation, I learned from my mistake, didn't have anymore children until I could support the one I had properly, and was responsible enough to not place the burden on anyone else.

The father knew he was the father, but didn't want to be involved with the child. I chose not to have him in her life because, quite frankly, is that really the type of father that I want for my child? Someone who doesn't want to be there? I didn't want my child going through life knowing her dad didn't want anything to do with her. That , in my opinion, is worse than not knowing who your father is. That is also why I feel dna testing doesn't really matter. You can order support payments, but that doesn't mean they will pay them, and if the father doesn't want to be involved, he won't be.

But, if the person is on wefare, and can not afford to take care of their child, they shouldn't be having any more while they are on welfare. That is the only real point I was trying to make. And that is what I don't understand. If your in dire straights, why would you make your situation worse by having more children unless you in some way benefit from it?

Blend57

reply to post by Annee


Well in my case, I not only pay child support, I get to pay child support for the same child to two different states. In addition to that, I get to pay out for every bit of aid she has ever received, and I get to pay it to a women who has purposely kept my child from me and refused to allow me to get a paternity test, and refuses to let me see my child. I don't mind paying child support, but I do have a problem with paying back every bit of aid she receives and I mind for two reasons.

#1. It takes two to make a baby. We should BOTH be paying for the aid she receives.

#2. She only receives aid because of her own actions. If she would stop acting like a child herself and actually allow me to be involved with my own child and actually come to me for things that are needed, she would not even any type of aid to begin with!

Fact is, things like this happen all the time. There is no shortage of cases where men pay child support, prove they are not actually the father, and are then court ordered to continue paying anyway.

So like it or not, the way the system is currently set up is a bunch of crap. It favors women, even if that women proves herself to be a complete idiot.