English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

OKAY I AM SO SICK OF SEEING PARENTS WITH 2 OR MORE CHILDREN AND LIVING OFF THE GOVERNMENT. IF YOU CANT AFFORD ONE CHILD WHY MOST YOU PUT ANOTHER CHILD THROUGH THAT KIND OF LIFE. I THINK THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD STOP GIVING MONEY TO THESE PEOPLE AND THEY SHOULD GET OFF THEIR BOOTIES AND GET A JOB. I UNDERSTAND THAT SOME OF THEM ARE HANDICAPPED THATS UNDERSTANDABLE. BUT ALL THESE PEOPLE WHO ARE HEALTHY AND ARE JUST TO LAZY TO GET UP AND GET A JOB. IT SHOULDNT MATTER IF IT IS FAST FOOD OR NOT. A JOB IS A JOB. THEY NEED TO TAKE CARE OF THE FAMILY THAT THEY DECIDED TO HAVE. OR HERE IS SOMETHING ELSE IF THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO PAY FOR YOUR FAMILY THEY SHOOULD LIMIT YOU TO ONE CHILD. WHAT DO YOU THINK?

2007-03-07 06:49:28 · 16 answers · asked by ♥TEENYTINY♥ 3 in Society & Culture Other - Society & Culture

IM STARTING TO THINK ALL THESE PEOPLE WHO ARE GETTING MAD ARE USING THE GOVERNMENT FOR MONEY..

2007-03-07 06:54:48 · update #1

I WOULDNT HAVE TO WORRY I KNOW HOW TO LOOK FOR A JOB IF I GET FIRED OR QUIT. I DONT RELY ON THE GOVERNMENT I AM A VERY RESPONSIBLE PERSON.

2007-03-07 06:57:41 · update #2

ALL OF YOU SHOULD READ SEN B'S ANSWER ITS AWESOME.

2007-03-07 07:02:58 · update #3

16 answers

There is alot of what you said i totally agree with. But i dont agree with limiting the amount of children people have but definitely if you cant afford the first you should be forced to work after the second maybe not the mother but definitely the father. Where i work in a pharmacy there are plenty of girls under 18 with two kids no father in sight and living of dole money, getting cigarettes, lottery tickets and taxi's having tax payer pay there rent and council tax its sickening. There is one girl who has 5 children and she is 21 and rather than make her go to work after the second child (because there is no father around to do it) limit her money to just enough for the one child because im 100% sure the only reason she has gone on to have 5 is because the government increase the amount of money she receives with each child. Like you say if she cant afford to support the first then if she goes on to have five its her own choice and support them all with the money you have. She is sitting in a 4 bedroom house, all decorated by the tax payer, rent and council tax paid and whatever benefits she gets is all spending money for her. She certainly does not spend it on those children. I think limit the amount of benefit dont increase it with each child and let them get on with it, if they need more money do like the rest of us GET A JOB!

2007-03-07 07:00:07 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Well, I think a limit of 2 BORN WHILE on public assistance would be more lenient, I mean, after all, some women have one(or more) children already BEFORE they are reduced to living off the government. For most people on public assistance, it's a temporary thing, not a lifestyle choice.
As for people who continually have children? Well I think it would be reasonable to demand that a man found to have two or more children (Especially with multiple mothers) on public assistance should be sterilized. As should women with 3 or more children (multiple fathers). They have shown that they cannot be responsible with their reproductive organs, and, as the state is paying, it should be regulated.
Yes, I have been on public assistance before, yes, it was temporary and yes, I chose tubal ligation after my second child. I wouldn't say these things if I didn't practice what I preach.
I come from a town where there are very few chances for employment and from what I have observed, the more children a woman has, the less likely it is that she will be able to get off of assistance, this is in part because of the high cost of daycare/lack of night time care for children, NOT a desire to be lazy or unemployed.

2007-03-07 07:10:00 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

A possibly uneducated parent...with two kids. Gets a job...but it pays minimum wage with no benefits. They stay on welfare and the kids will have some form of governement health care for the kids. They will get food stamps. They may want to work but if they can't get a decent paying job with some medical benefits then it's better for the kids to stay unemployed. Yes, the government is to blame for part of the problem...and the mom/dad that has the kids...but let's not forget good old corporate greed for keeping wages low and benefits non-existing for the worker.

2007-03-07 06:57:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

I read an interesting public forum piece from a newspaper recently that stated " I don't mind paying my taxes, and letting the Gov't distribute them as they see fit. But I do have a problem with the fact that I have to pass a random urine test to work, and pay my taxes. Why shouldn't the people who collect unemployment and welfare be forced to pass random drug tests?" I am paraphrasing but thats what it boiled down to. Here's some food for thought, a urine drug test only costs $8, if the Gov't made a deal with labs, thats the price it would cost.

2007-03-07 06:58:07 · answer #4 · answered by Society Dweller 2 · 5 0

I can really see the anger in your typing! sometimes it bothers me, because the Government takes a lot of my money each paycheck, and then the people on welfare get the nerve to say they don't get enough money from the Government. I mean, come on, we work our a$$ off, and THEY complain? I work with the government, but come on, I work for that money. so that typically means that we the working people who pay taxes are giving them money

2007-03-07 07:03:29 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

A one point, the government was giving families on welfare "male enhancement" drugs, which would only make the problem worse, why not give them condoms or birth control? Too many of them keep having babies and do not want to get jobs. It is very annoying. -.-

2007-03-07 06:55:11 · answer #6 · answered by pcosenior 2 · 2 0

That fool say "why watch wrestling? its no longer even a game. No **** asshole! no one ever reported it grew to become right into a game, relatively they go out of their thank you to sy its leisure and not a game so what does that would desire to do with it? Why watch any t.v. coach that may not a game then? Is activities the only ideal difficulty to visual exhibit unit? you're an fool and seem stupid jointly as attempting to tear on wrestling because of the fact your too cool for something that isnt a real game. You figured it out no one ever knew it wasnt genuine, thats information to me dude thank you lots. As for the wedgies that bothers me on occasion yet no longer continually and that i doubt it turns the females on yet who knows.

2016-09-30 08:29:59 · answer #7 · answered by clawson 4 · 0 0

I wonder how you know which parents you see are living off of the government and which are not? Please, don't call anyone lazy if you haven't walked in their shoes. No, it does not bother me, there are many more important things in life than worry about people who are poor and struggling. Perhaps you could volunteer at a woman's shelter or pray that you are never in a position of the people you are talking about.

2007-03-07 06:55:37 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

I agree 100%, there are way too many lazy people that live off the government.

2007-03-07 06:54:00 · answer #9 · answered by chymera 2 · 3 0

Hey my mom works her @ss off at both of her jobs
She has never relied on the government
i get what your saying
nobody in staten island would hire my mom
she thinks they were racist
i think so too
my mom has really good qualifications

2007-03-07 07:55:15 · answer #10 · answered by Inahzi13 5 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers