To drive a car you have to provide "Proof of financial responsibility" It is my belief that to have children, a woman or a couple should have to provide similar proof of financial resposibility.I often hear of couples, but usually single mothers complaining that they can't afford the basic needs and that our tax $$ should pay for them. What do you think?
2006-10-25 03:21:01 · 7 answers · asked by Hammer 2 in Family & Relationships ➔ Marriage & Divorce
I totally agree with you we have enough welfare queens as it is . I dont think that anybody working 40 hrs a week is in need of assistance unless they are a single mother and do not recieve child support . And if they are in that sittuation then they should go after the misssing parent to repay the state welfare system for taking care of their child. Plain and simple if you cannot afford to feed them do not have them. I for one am tired of my tax dollars going to feeding a bunch of lazy parents kids .good luck and god bless.
2006-10-25 04:19:37 · answer #1 · answered by Kate T. 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe that if a person is working 40 hours a week and still can't provide food and shelter for their children they should be given assistance. If that same person has additional children, I feel that their assistance should be reduced with each child. If someone is really trying to take responsibility and still needs help, give it to them. But, if your giving someone help and they take advantage of it, they should be penalized. Today's system is so backwards----sit at home, have more and more children (this goes for men and women) and get a bigger check. That's bulls**t. I shouldn't have to pay for my children and the 3 or 4 or 5 that a lazy user decides to have.
2006-10-25 03:32:18 · answer #2 · answered by sleepless in NC 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is good in theory, but reality is, if the government doesn't step in to help, it's the kids that suffer, not the parents. The kids are the ones doing without food, or clothes. Yes, the parents should have been more responsible and not had a child they couldn't afford, but you can't punish their kids for their parents mistakes. Reducing funds for each additional kid is still punishing the wrong people in the problem. Yes, I hate that people can so easily abuse the social service system, but I don't want a child to go hungry either (even though I know some still do, even with assistance). It's not a perfect system, but it's the only one we have.
2006-10-25 03:43:45 · answer #3 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
In a super form of words your fairly asserting that while you're broke, then you definately don't have infants, and that the government at each and every point ought to do away with classes for single mothers and fogeys. you ought to besides say that the government ought to help beginning administration via controlling how many youngsters you ought to have and forced abortions. And no, to stress a vehicle you do no longer want financial accountability persay using fact all it extremely is is to tutor you additionally could make money, yet wager what, in case you could't they take their vehicle back. you could't try this to a baby persay, till there is abuse and neglet. If which may be the case you probable does no longer have been born or your loved ones using fact someplace down the line till you're very rich with previous money, that somebody on your loved ones did no longer get some style of information of a few sort. in case you flow to the legislature with that style of excellent judgment, don't get mad in the event that they laugh at you and kick you out for dropping some time. i think of your theory is lots fetched and rattling close to facist and communist-like. you could't tell a guy or woman what to do with their physique.. hi.. perfect to life? you have been staring at too many video clips... via the time you attempt to administration the poplulation with each and all of the wasted tax money, you ought to've sent hundreds of thousands of youngsters to varsity, and shelter needy households... And are you going to pay for each and all of the abortions on account which you think of that a woman needs to terminate a being pregnant based strictly on their financial desires? Like I stated, if that have been the case, you probable does no longer be here in any respect asserting something that loopy. using fact in case you do away with the financial area, parenting remains difficult and money can't make it not greater handy.
2016-11-25 19:59:06 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well.. in an ideal world everything would work right too. the more rules and regulations we create..the more people are going to try to overcome them. case in point, drinking in america. its out of control... youhave alcholoic TEENAGERS...thats crazy.. in europe they don't have near the huge problem we do...because they don't have an age limit...
i also think (on the other hand) that we shouldn't have to pay for illegals kids...thats crazy. Thats inSANE... i clip coupons every week, i have a STRICT budget (my hubby is in the military, and an officer at that making "more money" than most in, but its still not enough) ... if i have to do it, so should they, with their OWN money..and the legal way.
2006-10-25 03:41:53 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, I'm sorry, I don't subscribe to either of those two logics. When I had my daughter, yes I had a job...but it wasn't a good one. I made sure that my daughter had everything before I did anything for myself. So the parents need to take care of their child and take responsibility for the life that they have created.
2006-10-25 03:24:11 · answer #6 · answered by goldenfir 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think we would have less welfare cases. and less deadbeat dads and moms. less fatherless and motherless children.
most will not agree, because that would change the whole concept of living off the state, and people do not like change.
but then again how will you make young, stupid kids who get pregnant, to be held accountable?
2006-10-25 03:37:12 · answer #7 · answered by nwnativeprincess 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋