No. It's not my fault or my responsibility to support people who made bad decisions to have babies without a father or couldn't hold their marriages together. Their decisions, their lives, their responsibility. I handle my own responsibility and support our own 4 children.
2006-10-14 03:28:15
·
answer #1
·
answered by lizardmama 6
·
4⤊
1⤋
Wow! What a question. I would think that the fathers of these children should be made to pay for them. If the father has married the mother of the children, and then has died, perhaps society should help. Oh! Wait a minuet. It does. Welfare in the US has become rampant. Mostly due to things like: Single Moms, single Dads, drug addicts, Illegal immigrants. Then there are those pesky people that really need it, like the sick, the injured, the mentally ill. What I really think is that singles moms should use the system to become trained, then go to work, raise their kids to be good people, then be proud of them selves.
Too many times these gals sit at home crying, :"Woe is me." Then pop out several more kids by several more fathers. The help is out there and it should be used properly.
Yes, I think that single moms should get financial help from the government, but I think that there should be stiff penalties for abusing it. And the fathers of these children? They should pay or be in jail doing hard labor.
2006-10-14 10:42:36
·
answer #2
·
answered by It All Matters.~☺♥ 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
As a single Mom, I don't want hand outs, but I need help, so it's a catch 22 for me. I work hard serving tables 6 days a week. I work lunches while the kids are in school. I work the weekends that my kids are with their dad and I work Saturday nights on my weekends with the kids. I still only make like $150 / week. I struggle every day. If customers knew where their $1.50 tip was going to, I wonder if they would leave more, knowing it is supporting my family (?).
I think a better solution is for big company's to give single Mother's more of a chance. We need to work to survive, therefore we do whatever we have to. We are generally harder workers because we NEED our job. At the same time, they need to be more flexible with single Mom's, as we are the primary care giver to our children and when they are sick, have a dentist appointment, parent-teacher conferences or even the holiday concert, we need to be there for them. These arren't every week issues, so it's not like we are wanting a lot of time off.
Unlike many, I don't have a back-up care giver (unless you count my ex, but he works, too - Thank God!!). My back-up care giver passed away 2 years ago, so summer vacations and holiday breaks from school and kids coming home sick from school are all up to me. At 10 and 13, I have a bit more leeway than if they were much younger. Still, company's need to take that into consideration. I don't abuse those times that I need to be with my kids due to an illness or whatever, since I would much rather work and make the money. The bills don't stop because my kids are ill or whatever. However, there are no such company's around my area willing to
1) Give single Mom's that kind of flexibility
2) Pay Single Mom's any type of good money - we are still the lower paid gender for the same work
3) Allow us to raise our children and care for our children in a way that will not penalize us for taking them to a dentist appointment or to the doctor.
Help financially? I would love help, my pride keeps me from asking for much, but it would be a weight off BOTH my shoulders! Not too mention that I don't want a man in my life just because he has money and can help financially or give me health insurance, I want a man in my life because we love each other, not love his money and what he can pay.
2006-10-14 10:41:32
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Why does everyone automatically assume that a single mother is a women that sleeps around just to have kids. What about the women who are in a stable relationship for 10 or so years? Some of the these women may have stopped working or stopped getting educated. Of course they should get more help. Men make more the women always have and always will (unless you sue then it take 2 plus years) No I am not a single mother but I am married do not work and have stopped my education to take care of my three kids if my husband left me I would hope that I could get the assist that I need. More of you should open your mind instead of turning you backs on the needy. One day you may need help and there will be no one around!!
2006-10-14 11:43:54
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
it depends. if they didnt mean to get pregant or they had a other half and he was out sky larking with anyone then yeah, but some people just use kids as a way to get money out of the hard working tax payers. and yes i am a tax payer. i have seen what you have to get when you have a kid and i think the goverment should pay out a bit more than 16 pound a week, i mean come on do they know how much nappies and other bits and pieces cost. we should get something good out of what were giving to the goverment, instead of them having lavish parties on our expense they should make the hospitals better that why most people want there births to be at home where it is clean and where theres no mrsa around. AFTER ALL OUR CHILDREN ARE THE FUTURE. AND WE NEED THE FUTURE TO KEEP GOING
2006-10-14 10:54:53
·
answer #5
·
answered by Gerards twin 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
No Way , ever since the late !60,s we have been developing an Army of Irresponsible , Whinging Spongers , Abusing, not stop, Social Services ,whilst having many relationships with more than one Man at a Time and expecting the Nation to pay for the "Results"
2006-10-14 10:38:50
·
answer #6
·
answered by ? 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
If there was no financial help for single mothers, those who were both careless and poor would have the choice of abortion or adoption. This would significantly reduce the size of the under-class and consequent tax burden on working people.
2006-10-14 10:37:44
·
answer #7
·
answered by Clive 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Financially no, educationally yes.
If you get married and have kids and choose to be a stay at home mom then that's the RISK you take when the divorce comes.
People get married and then set themselves up for disaster by joining financial accounts, mingling assets, co-signing and not having a prenuptial agreement.
2006-10-14 13:33:52
·
answer #8
·
answered by murkglider 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I can see where some might say we should but I personally do not think so. My daughter was in what we thought was a stable relationship. She married and had 3 sons and we found out he wasn't what we thought so they divorced. Child support comes in but not regularly, she works and works hard. She pays her bills and is buying a house drives a 12 year old truck that is paid for and tries to not ask for help. She gets zip from the government and wouldn't ask if she could get help. She has pride in herself. That is the one thing welfare takes away, pride in oneself. I would frankly like to see more single moms like my daughter than to pay 1 more dime in support.
2006-10-14 10:37:19
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
WHY???
If a single mum cannot pay for kids then don't have them???
I had 3 and was on a very low wage i went without ,no going out, mates gave me cast offs , soup and mash for dinner, then got a better job when kids went to school , I never smoked as I could not afford it or drank alcohol , never had a babysitter , I wanted my kids so I paid for them , now they appreciate all I that I did for them without having to put my hand out to anyone , I live it up now I am a Nanny the fun started when I bought my Motorbike and started going to Rallies In Europe .
2006-10-14 10:37:08
·
answer #10
·
answered by TRUEBRIT 4
·
3⤊
0⤋
Its not just financial help thats needed, most free training at adult education has been scrapped. We need better education at all ages.
The poverty trap means it is almost impossible to get out of the vicious circle once you're thrown in it.
Tax incentives for working are excellent, so thats not a problem, but childcare is.
Poor people in general need more help. Water bills, gas and electricity are a problem, and should not incur VAT. VAT was supposed to be for luxuries, not energy , food and shoes.
2006-10-14 10:32:45
·
answer #11
·
answered by sarah c 7
·
2⤊
1⤋