Unmarried Question Welfare Plan

Yahoo ^ | 4/15/02 | LAURA MECKLER

[KC_Conspirator]

This is a better idea than the liberals of the 60's and the Great Society came up with. I can't think of a worse idea than to give more welfare money to single moms for each illegitimate kids they have. I also think we should drug test welfare recipeints and cut them off if they test positive, not to mention that we should cut off college students who accept government money who test positive as well.

[Rightwing Canuck]

Single women who have been on welfare say the idea may make sense in theory, but there's no way it would work for them

"But right now I'm happy to be single..."

I think she means she's happy to suckle on the taxpayers' teat.

[LetsRok]

"We were Tyson and Holyfield," she said. "We're civil now, but marriage — that's not even a thought."

But she was willing to spread her legs for him. What a tramp.

[liberte]

"It's hard being a single mother, don't get me wrong," said Kelly Siler, 31, who lives outside of Chicago with her three children. "But right now I'm happy to be single. I don't feel like taking care of a man who would act like a child." The father of her 10-year-old son has been in and out of jail since the boy was born, she said. After her 5-year-old twins were born, she found out their dad was married to another woman. There's no way she would marry either man, she said.

Hmm ... do you think she has figured out what caused her pregnancies? I mean, didn't she pick these guys in the first place? If you don't want a guy to be the father of your children, then don't have unprotected sex with them!

[Sloth]

"It's hard being a single mother, don't get me wrong," said Kelly Siler, 31, who lives outside of Chicago with her three children. "But right now I'm happy to be single. I don't feel like taking care of a man who would act like a child."

Kirkland, who also lives near Chicago, feels the same way...

Wow, four virgin births around Chicago alone!

[GovernmentShrinker]

Huh? Read the descriptions of the two fathers of her children. The first one isn't likely to give any boost to her financial situation whether he's married to her or not, since he's in prison half the time, and presumably isn't holding good jobs in between prison stints. The other one was already married to someone else when he fathered children by her. Which one of these losers do you suggest the federal government should use OUR tax dollars to bribe into "marrying" her?

[GovernmentShrinker]

Yes, she is a tramp. And I sure don't want my tax dollars spent on giving welfare bonuses to tramps, since they'll still be tramps even if they go with one of their boyfriends to sign up for a government-issued marriage certificate in order to qualify for the bonus.

[dubyas_vision]

What type of person votes for Republicans? Democrats?
Any guesses why the Republicans support and the Democrats oppose this new marriage plan?
Not difficult.

[tdadams]

some argue government simply has no place promoting marriage

But it shouldn't be promoting single motherhood either. The fedgov shouldn't be involved in welfare, social engineering, or income redistribution at all. But in realtiy it is involved and it's policies either promote marriage or promote single motherhood. It's black or white. That's why this should not, and never should have been, given to the fedgov to deal with.

[Rightwing Canuck]

Huh? Read the descriptions of the two fathers of her children. The first one isn't likely to give any boost to her financial situation whether he's married to her or not, since he's in prison half the time, and presumably isn't holding good jobs in between prison stints. The other one was already married to someone else when he fathered children by her. Which one of these losers do you suggest the federal government should use OUR tax dollars to bribe into "marrying" her?

Neither. I was referring to the article implying she was on welfare, and being happy. She shouldn't marry either of them, and she shouldn't be on welfare either. No one should.

[GovernmentShrinker]

I quite agree that no one should be on welfare and happy about it. That's why I'm alarmed at proposals to create yet another taxpayer-funded entitlement which will end up subsidizing destructive behavior. And I'm even more alarmed about the level of acceptance on FR of this new scheme. If freepers won't oppose another expensive, ineffective, government-run social engineering program, who will?

[Lorianne]

Most of the people on welfare are single mothers who have never been married.

Give the kids to their fathers to support and take full time care of. Single mother problem solved. Next?

[Lorianne]

But it shouldn't be promoting single motherhood either

I agree. Nor should it be subsidizing the obligations of the fathers of these kids either. I have an idea, I know it's wacky, but why don't we ask bio-PARENTS to support their own offspring?

[Don Myers]

Lets just admit it. These women are losers who want to continue living off the state. And, we have many American women like this.

[Don Myers]

"Which one of these losers do you suggest the federal government should use OUR tax dollars to bribe into "marrying" her?"

Actually, you are right. It would just be another marriage made in Hell. Lets just cut off her welfare.

[GovernmentShrinker]

You'll get no argument from me on that. I'm just amazed and appalled at how a large chunk of the "conservative" camp is supporting this scheme to add yet another entitlement program to the already bursting-at-the-seams welfare state.

Next thing you know, somebody will propose a program to make huge payments to "ex-gays" for staying heterosexual, and the "conservatives" will all jump on board because in their enthusiasm to support any anti-gay initiative, they won't notice that it's really a pro-socialism, anti-freedom initiative, which will have absolutely no effect on the incidence and practice of homosexuality.

Wake-up call to conservatives: we need LESS welfare, not more!

[GovernmentShrinker]

Yeah, sure. Often they can't even FIND the fathers unless they're in prison (which they frequently are). There's no reason to think the single fathers would do any better than the single mothers at taking care of the kids, and a lot of reason to think they'd do worse.

Personally, I think single mothers who can't make ends meet should be advised to enter into arrangements with other single mothers, whereby two or three mothers would share a home, with one staying home taking care of the kids and the other(s) working. If it hadn't been for the welfare handouts, they'd have probably figured this out for themselves by now.

[Lorianne]

Not a bad idea really. The only thing I have against it is the letting dads of scot free. I believe in personal responsibilty. That does not exempt bio-dads, whether in prison or otherwise.

How about it? How about EQUAL responsibility of bio-parents for the offspring they create? Will the planets collide and the universe explode if we expect the two people who create kids to be accountable? You'd think so listening to the rhetoric around here.

[Lorianne]

There are just as many loser men as lose women.