It's time to stop rewarding people for having children and start taking them anyway

I'm still waiting to hear your solution, because "education" isn't working and can only go so far. Are you willing to punish the parents for pushing these burdens on society on us in anyway?

 

Apparently, the argument was made by someone else. My bad. I quoted you, but responded to someone else's post.

 

Have you read the horror stories of foster care? Obviously not.. And just who do you suppose pays for foster care?

 

Yes I have as well as the success stories of children removed from parents who make bad decisions. Of course I know who pays for foster care. You confuse us not wanting to spend money frivolously on career welfare system abusers with spending money to actually help people.
The problem with your system is there is no checks and balances. A woman can keep having as many children as she wants and we have to keep paying for them. This as we know, creates career welfare system abusers, people who have children for the purpose of staying on assistance. Those people should not be rewarded.
In my system children are still helped but the career welfare system abusers are stopped in their tracks. Woman are free to have as many children they want however only the first one will be paid for by us. What she does after that is on her dime. I don't see why anyone would take issue with that.

 

So many common sense solutions like this can never see the light of day because people who think like Peppermint will twist it around to say "These people want babies to starve and go without medical care". Politically, it's poisonous, regardless if it is the best solution. This represents one of the failings of our current system; that the BEST solutions cannot be implemented because they are short-term painful, regardless of their long-term benefit.

 

This 'independent thinker' evidently doesn't consider that those he seeks to condemn for not being brought up in a "decent home" may have perfectly valid reasons for living on welfare; bereavement of their spouse, sickness, job loss etc. How would removing their children benefit anyone?
Thinking is a useful tool. Just saying...

 

You don't believe in human rights. I guarantee you this much; you would be the first to start whining about their violation if one of your heroic soldiers was captured and tortured, for example.
Here's a clue; China is set to become this dominant force if it already isn't. With a national debt fast approaching $20 trillion, and much of that owed to China, how much longer do you think your broke nation will be dominant?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2012/07/23/is-america-bankrupt/

 

How many children should other taxpayers be forced to provide subsistence for a woman who continues to create them when she has no means of supporting them, you know where most poverty exist, single mothers.

- - - Updated - - -

What does that have to do with women having birth out of wedlock which is the primary reason children live in poverty?

- - - Updated - - -

How many kids and for how long should the hardworking taxpayers have to pay for it? The money taken from me denied things for my kids.

 

Taking kids away is going too far(unless someone is pumping out kids every year, which is child abuse), but if you're already on welfare and have another kid, thats a big bunch of B.S.!!!! We have to change the law so that people are VERY AWARE that you can't just pop out kids for a bigger paycheck. Frankly, anyone who has kids already on welfare is mentally disabled in some capacity. You seriously have to have a few screws loose.

No parent LOVES their children by introducing them into an unsuitable environment.

 

People who believe like you do are the reason we have a constitution. It protects against tyrannical rule, which is what you propose when you allow the state to decide who, how many, and how capable. You made the giant leap from poor households to high crime while totally ignore all the ones who grew up poor and became something meaningful to society.

 

So you are in agreement that the government should have the right to forcibly remove infants from their parents if the government determines that the parents are not financially stable. You do realize that that was the insane premise of the OP...right?

But why don't we finally just cut to the chase...

 

I'd think you'd find that there would magically be a lot less mommies unfit to have children actually having children in my system. They'd be more careful or voluntarily get abortions. Both would be very good for society.

 

He is trolling

 

Yeah, and how about we abort all babies, just in case they grow up to hold idiotic opinions like the ones displayed in your posts. That would definitely be very good for society...

 

Is there really any point in engaging in such fascist fantasies that will never come true?

 

Raising children is an obligation not a privilege. A society without children can't survive.

 

Just waiting for the next conservative thread about 'taking back America'; ('back' being the operative...).

 

Unemployment compensation for Persons who are unemployed on an at-will basis, could solve this social dilemma in a market friendly manner.

Means tested welfare should be reserved for those for whom solving for a simple poverty of money may not be enough in our Institution of money based markets and our form of capitalism.

 

So Chinese domination =Welfare State?

American "exceptionalism" is nonsense. China will blow the doors off the US economically because of sheer demographics.

 

Ok let's cut. How many children should the hard working taxpayer have to provide subsistence for people who have children they cannot afford to provide for themselves? And at that point what is to be done?

 

nope; that happens to warfare-States when they forget any economic front.

 

The suggested policy can sound a bit rude and extreme, anyway I could submit to the attention of the participants to this discussion the Italian model.

Actually, Italy give tax benefits for any child according to the family income, but this tax benefit is so low that usually Italians tend to consider it at the limit of the offensive.

In other words, it's a bit more than symbolic. It's less than 100€ per month per child and if the global annual tax benefit is above 4,000€ the tax agents will pay you a visit ...

This to say that our state gives an aid to families, it doesn't substitute the parents in the duty to economically sustain the children.

 

We will outlast yours economically.

 

Kinda ignored the fact that this isn't about mothers, this is about the children. How much are you willing to support children?

 

I married a single mother with two kids and adopted them and supported them from childhood, that's how much. Now try not to dodge this time how many children should other taxpayers be forced to provide subsistence for a woman who continues to create them when she has no means of supporting them? And if you can show me where the government checks are made out to the children and they control the money let me know. It's about the parents not providing for them when they should be providing for them but instead letting government do it in their stead and continue to create more of them while doing so.