It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bill Would Reduce Welfare Benefits For Women Who Cannot Prove They Were Raped

page: 8
21
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by 200Plus
 


first, I counted five dads, who should be working hard to support the one child that they have helped bring into the world....
so, well, figure out the difference between a cheap efficiency apartment and a one bedroom apt, divide and half, add to that half the cost of feeding that child, half the cost of the diapers, clothing and other needs the child may have, half the cost of healthcare, cost of child care, ect, ect...and that should be the contribution for that dad.....

times it by five....my guess would be that it would be around $200 for each dad, $1000 all together, and well, if they actually enforced the child support laws, she would be doing okay with a minimum wage job, wouldn't she??

I know of someone playing this game, she is up to daddy number three...and well....she's had several nervous breakdowns already, daddy's had to take custody a few times for her, ect.... I raised three kids who are spaced less than three years apart (same daddy, my hubby by the way) , I can understand why .she had a nervous breakdown or two!!

but, I don't believe that this describes your typical recipient of these benefits. I've know just as many married couples, with young kids, dad working, mom staying home and well...dad just isn't making enough money...
there were three parts of my equation...
people makes more money.....
bring the cost of living down....notice how I said cheap efficiency for the single mom...not the super nice expensive one on the other side of town??? and well, got to tell ya, I was making a couple of bucks over minimum, in a occupation I have ten years of experience in, and if I were to have to go it alone, I wouldn't have been able to afford that cheap efficiency!!! which, maybe, just maybe is why this girl is having kid and kid, after kid????

in NY state, a family of three making under $2,545, can get their kid on the state child's healthcare program - Child Health Plus and get free health insurance for their kid....they can make up to $6,364 and have to pay only $60/mo for that insurance, or less....
does the cost of that insurance need to go down??
or is it more that they want to make sure those kids are insured so much that they are being overly generous??? not sure... but there are problems in it whichever answer your choose to give!!!

www.health.ny.gov...

healthcare itself is grossly overpriced and some of it's cost could be easily shaved off I am sure...
same with higher education, rent, and on and on, just about every basic necessity that the gov't subsidizes, it has caused to inflate for profit taking!!!

so, yes, we could make an effort to bring down the cost of living and see positive results!!!

and then I mentioned education...
no, just giving the people a wage that will pay their bills isn't the whole answer...
neither is reducing that cost of living,
and well, you just can't fix stupid, and when it comes to money, there's some pretty stupid people out there!!!
we need to find a way to cheaply make them financially smarter...

I've raised my three kids with my hubby, he has worked his way from apprentice journeyman to tool and die maker. in bad times he has also worked as a truck driver, still has his cdl, pave parking lots, roofed houses, and churches with some pretty high steeples. he's now a tool and die maker, can't go any higher in the trade that that!!!. his income now wouldn't be enough to support a family of five. we'd probably still be borderline eligible for some kind of handout from the gov't, meaning we'd still be in that nice crack where we can't afford to live, but too rich to be eligible.... and that is a really tough spot to be in, I know, I"ve raised three kids within it. I can see why 40% or so of the younger women are chosing to just have the kids with no hubby and take the root they are...you can at least live!! if you break a major bone, you don't have to lie around, calling doctors, state agencies, state and local congressmen just to get the danged thing set right so you can continue on!!!

there are plenty of jobs out there that anyone can do, and there's alot of jobs out there that our expectations have muddled up to the point that where once, the welfare recipient was doing, but now, oh, now, we have to have a bachelor's degree to get!!!
what I am saying is that if a job requires an able bodied person to do it, then that job should be paying enough to keep that person alive and functioning so that they can do that job!! if it requires a few years of experience to land that job, then it should also be paying enough to also supply half the needs of the children that more than likely exist. and, the reason why this isn't happening now is that the companies are being greedy on both ends, paying way too little and charging way too much.








edit on 1-11-2012 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 05:29 AM
link   
sorry, my computer got a mind of it's own and started doing crazy things...
double post...
sorry!!
edit on 1-11-2012 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by 200Plus
reply to post by dawnstar
 


Just so I'm following you here.

Girl has a kid at 16 because she and her boyfriend didn't use BC. Second kid from a new boyfriend comes along at age 17. Third kid fathered by her "soulmate" at age 20. At 22 she gives birth to her fourth child (still from the soulmate). That relationship fades and she finds a new man and has her fifth kid at age 25. At 37 she is unemployable and living off the tax payer, same as she has been since age 16.

And the answer is to give her a good paying job that she isn't qualified for. Are you serious?
edit on 31-10-2012 by 200Plus because: (no reason given)


How often does that happen, though? Sure it does happen. Just probably not as often as you claim.

If you have stats to back it up, though, I'd love to see it.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


Actually that happens alot. A local woman is going to prison for fraud but she wanted to stay out to take care of her family 24 years old 6 kids and the oldest is 12 the man in the house is the father of the 6 month old. Do the math. In this town 20% have 2 childern before they get out of high school



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


How many of the women on assistance are raising children conceived by rape. Not nearly as many as people are making it out to be. But by all means, show me the proof to back your claims............... don't worry I'll wait.
edit on 1-11-2012 by 200Plus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 07:18 AM
link   
Welfare should be cut off for everyone. Freedom does not have a safety net. Go live in some socialist country if you want hand outs.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 


Those dads can only be made to pay if the state knows their names. Thats the point of the bill.

Yes I agree a man should pay his share for raising his child.

I don't want to drag the thread off topic with corporate greed and people with entitlement issues.

I guess we'll have to agree to agree on some things, and agree to disagree on others.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by mikellmikell
 


she would have had to have the first kid when she was 12 years old....
rape, incest, or what???

www.youtube.com...

ain't saying it couldn't happen, but I think it would be a rather unusual occurance, and I also think that social services would step in very quickly!!

of course, this chart will probably blow some people's minds!!

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by 200Plus
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


How many of the women on assistance are raising children conceived by rape. Not nearly as many as people are making it out to be. But by all means, show me the proof to back your claims............... don't worry I'll wait.
edit on 1-11-2012 by 200Plus because: (no reason given)


Nope, that's a red herring. I asked you first, so put up or shut up.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikellmikell
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


Actually that happens alot. A local woman is going to prison for fraud but she wanted to stay out to take care of her family 24 years old 6 kids and the oldest is 12 the man in the house is the father of the 6 month old. Do the math. In this town 20% have 2 childern before they get out of high school


Anecdotal. "A lot" is a subjective claim and therefore irrelevant. What are the actual numbers?

20% might have two children before they're out of high school, but are they on welfare? How many of those are actually incest cases?

See where I'm going with this? You're making a subjective judgment without knowing the whole story. I work with the same low-income population you're talking about, and there are very, very few 12 year old girls having sex of their own accord. Not till around age 15 or so do you start to see that. I've been seeing this for over 20 years. And most of them never get pregnant again. It's so rare that if a girl does get pregnant again at such a young age, much less have 5 or 6 kids to 5 or 6 different men, it's cause for comment.

Now, about your hypothetical situation. If a girl is 12 or younger at conception, you can bet your bottom dollar she was raped or molested, usually by the father, stepfather, mother's boyfriend, or other close male relative. My youngest patient was 9 at conception, and had been gang raped by her cousin and two of his friends.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   



Lots of abstinent women get raped.

There are no fool-proof methods aside from surgically altering your reproductive system.


THIS ABOVE HERE IS THE GOLDEN LINE^ Surgery, and why is it that we women CANNOT get our tubes done at 18??? WHY IS IT THEY HAVE THIS STUPID AGE AND BABY REQUIREMENT? Listen it is reversible in the future (PROVEN) also, takes money, but you CAN reverse it and if you can't and choose later to have a family, then there is also in vitro and adoption!!! WHY when I was 18 and wanted my tubes done (With no babies) did I get looked at by the doc as if I sprouted a second head?!?!?! Half the problem would be fixed if these totally retarded laws or requirements were put down the throne and flushed like the POS they really are!!!!!
edit on 1-11-2012 by ldyserenity because: edit large quote



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by mikellmikell
 


she would have had to have the first kid when she was 12 years old....
rape, incest, or what???

www.youtube.com...

ain't saying it couldn't happen, but I think it would be a rather unusual occurance, and I also think that social services would step in very quickly!!


No, they won't. They have to know about it, and many mothers (but not all or even the majority) simply don't believe their daughters when they claim molestation or abuse. The girls often don't say anything, either. Many divorced women with daughters never get remarried for that very reason--they aren't willing to take that chance.







posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by 200Plus
 

how much a dad is made to pay is proportional to how much he is making, which leads back to the higher wages, doesn't it?? a man working a minimum wage job isn't gonna have enough taken out of his check to pay for half the support the child would need!!!



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


thought hospitals would have to report suspected abuse??
there's a minor pregnant delivering at a hospital, any way you look at it, it would be considered rape, the hospital would have to report it???
and well, even if it was delivered at home, sooner or later, there would have to be a registered birth.....or the baby would be a non-person....



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


unfortunately, that isn't 100% effective either...
knew someone who got pregnant after having one...



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


HAHAHA

I have to provide substance, but you can just pull $^%# out of the air?

Because you asked first?

I'm done with you.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 


Well I've had one for 13 years and it's been effective and yea it's true some do still get pregnant but it's less than 1%



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


If I remember right, in pennsyvania, if a minor becomes pregnant, the parents of the minor is responsible for both!!

or at least that was how it was when my niece became pregnant, my brother ended up footing the bills..

so well, in that state at least, only if the parents of the minor is on welfare, would the baby be one welfare....


edited to add:


When the agency receives a minor-mother referral, it begins legal proceedings against three parties: The father of the minor-mother. The mother of the minor-mother. And the father of the minor-mother's child. Because the parents of minor-mothers are legally responsible to support their daughter until emancipation, they must pay child support for their minor-mother daughters. The Welfare Reform Act added certain requirements for teenage parents and minor-mothers to qualify for welfare cash benefits. The minor mother must be enrolled in a high school or a state-approved GED program and she must be living with an adult. The Welfare Reform Act attempts to eliminated any easy way for minors to become physically and financially independent of their parents. The parents of a no custodial teenage father are held liable and required to pay child support on behave of their minor son, if the minor-mother receives any welfare benefits. Grandparents are liable to pay child support for their grandchildren, if the parents of the child is a minors.

insurance.families.com...#


it was part of the welfare reform act of the bill clinton years....




edit on 1-11-2012 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by 200Plus
reply to post by dawnstar
 


Just so I'm following you here.

Girl has a kid at 16 because she and her boyfriend didn't use BC. Second kid from a new boyfriend comes along at age 17. Third kid fathered by her "soulmate" at age 20. At 22 she gives birth to her fourth child (still from the soulmate). That relationship fades and she finds a new man and has her fifth kid at age 25. At 37 she is unemployable and living off the tax payer, same as she has been since age 16.

And the answer is to give her a good paying job that she isn't qualified for. Are you serious?
edit on 31-10-2012 by 200Plus because: (no reason given)


No. The answer is to provide free education, child care, and even pay her a STIPEND to go school while she's young so that SHE IS QUALIFIED for a good paying job LATER.

Is it expensive? You bet. You know what's even more expensive? Letting her live in poverty with a bunch of other people in the same situation so 3/5 her five kids wind up in prison.

Whether you like it or not...your tax dollars WILL BE supporting a lot of people. The only choice you have is whether to support those people OUTSIDE of the prison system where they can still engage in meaningful contributions to society...or just dump the money into a black hole in a prison where it is categorically impossible to do anything useful.

Prisoners pay even less taxes than poor people. At least you get sales tax out the poor.

So...which one do you want? Which one seems cheaper to you?



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by mikellmikell
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


Actually that happens alot. A local woman is going to prison for fraud but she wanted to stay out to take care of her family 24 years old 6 kids and the oldest is 12 the man in the house is the father of the 6 month old. Do the math. In this town 20% have 2 childern before they get out of high school


Anecdotal. "A lot" is a subjective claim and therefore irrelevant. What are the actual numbers?

20% might have two children before they're out of high school, but are they on welfare? How many of those are actually incest cases?

See where I'm going with this? You're making a subjective judgment without knowing the whole story. I work with the same low-income population you're talking about, and there are very, very few 12 year old girls having sex of their own accord. Not till around age 15 or so do you start to see that. I've been seeing this for over 20 years. And most of them never get pregnant again. It's so rare that if a girl does get pregnant again at such a young age, much less have 5 or 6 kids to 5 or 6 different men, it's cause for comment.

Now, about your hypothetical situation. If a girl is 12 or younger at conception, you can bet your bottom dollar she was raped or molested, usually by the father, stepfather, mother's boyfriend, or other close male relative. My youngest patient was 9 at conception, and had been gang raped by her cousin and two of his friends.


Well...there you go using critical thinking skills again instead of whipping up the most extreme case you possibly imagine and pawning it off as being somehow indicative of the norm.

Meanwhile...50%-ish of the farmers in this country are paid specifically NOT TO WORK and somewhere in the Middle East we just sent $1.5 million dollar Tomahawk cruise missile to blow up a $6 tent and a camel. While we fret over food, shelter, and clothing for needy children...all of the income taxes an average american will pay in their entire lifetime won't even buy A SINGLE CRUISE MISSILE!! Your taxes for this year? You probably bought a tail fin or some type of internal gasket or something.

Did you guys know that we actually PAINT those things? Yep. A single-use item which is not ever really exposed to the elements for any considerable duration, and go zooming by FAR too quickly to really need any sort of camouflage, gets a spiffy 3-color red, white, and blue paint job complete with racing stripes and oftentimes Raytheon's corporate logo. Because we gotta stylish while we kill civilians you know. How much do you think we could save if we didn't doll them up so much since they are just going to self-destruct anyways?

Here is what they look like:








...and yet, providing food, shelter, clothing, and medical care to kids who happened to have the bad luck of being born to a poor person is "too expensive" for someone who is successful primarily because of having the good luck of being born into a privileged situation...like say... Paris Hilton or Mitt Romney.

The problem isn't with these imaginary boogeymen that exist primarily in the mind of Rush Limbaugh. It's with the CORPORATE WELFARE!!!!




top topics



 
21
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join