View Single Post
Old 07-26-2010, 05:08 PM
professionalmom's Avatar
professionalmom professionalmom is offline Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: MI
Posts: 424

Originally Posted by mac60 View Post
"I have said this many times. Why would the state pay $260 per week for childcare for 2 kids, when the parent is only grossing $300 per week (net $225)? Wouldn't it make more sense to give the parent an extra $200 a week in benefits to stay home with said children? Government would save $100 per week in benefits and the kids would get to be raised by the actual parent. Oh, wait, I forgot, we are using that "new math" that I'm too old to have been taught in school. You know where 2+2 really does equal 5?"

Sorry, I don't agree with this, I think parents who have children they can't afford should HAVE to work, regardless if they come out ahead or not. Maybe they will think twice before they continue to pop another one out. And honestly, these kids who are in care with this type of parent who gets assistance is probably getting much better care at daycare than if they were at home with own parents. It is called the entitlement syndrome.
I definitely see your point and I agree to a degree. However, when you do the math, it is only hurting us (taxpayers). If you add up the medicaid, food stamps, WIC, housing assistance, utility assistance, daycare assistance, grants for school (free college anyone?), free legal assistance (to go after deadbeat dad), etc. they are getting over $2000 per month in benefits. What I love is the comments they make: "Give me a break. I don't have a husband to help me like you do." Uh, the government IS your husband. The government is contributing a second income to your household (tax free I might add).

So, why not keep these women home with their kids for a flat $1200 per month payout, for 3 years (until the kid can go to HeadStart or something like that), AND make the mom be on a long-term (but not permanent) birth control (like Norplant or IUD). If they refuse the birth control or get pregnant again, they do not get an additional 3 years or additional benefits. They get exactly the same as they did with one and when the original 3 years is up ... well, she better have a plan in place by then because the gravy train comes to a halt. I guess, she'll figure something out if there's a cap on everything. Plus, it will save all of us the expenses in the long run. As a taxpayer, I would rather pay $1200 per month for 36 months, rather than over $2000 every month indefinitely. Oh, and I mean $1200 to cover everything - housing, utilities, medical, food, etc. Of course this would be adjusted for the region. People in NYC would need more than a small town in the midwest. How could that cover everything? Go to Aldi (or some other discount grocery for food and buy the off brands), learn to conserve the A/C or heat/lights, use the Internet at the library to learn how to stretch your groceries by learning new recipes, use natural cleaning products (vinegar, baking soda), use cloth diapers, line dry the laundry, walk more, get a bike instead of a car, etc.

Would this put kids on the street? Not exactly. If the parent keeps popping out babies and looking for handouts, but can't provide, why doesn't the government step in? There are plenty of people on lists for YEARS, decades, looking for children to adopt. Now, I'm not talking about the families that have fallen on hard times and need assistance to get back on their feet. I'm talking about the women that crank out babies with different fathers (usually deadbeats) and are expecting everyone else to foot the bill. It starts a legacy of welfare entitlement that does not stop in a few years or even that generation.

I know this is going to be VERY unpopular, but we have to step up and start taking responsibility for ourselves. Sure, my family is having hard times right now. However, I do blame part of OUR problems on these welfare clients that I have had, that I have to take to court just to get the money they owe me. I have been taken advantage of and it has cost my family a lot. Luckily, we are still pretty self-sufficient. Our hands are NOT out looking for money. We are making the necessary adjustments to out lifestyle to avoid government involvement. We do get WIC, but that is it. And this is the first time in our lives. We are both in our mid to late 30's and have paid into the system for over 20 years. Yet, I almost cried from embarressment when I had to cash in some of our "benefits". I felt like a failure. Yet, many others see it as a RIGHT instead of the Privledge that it is.
Reply With Quote