Nova
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by Nova on Jan 13, 2008 9:56:27 GMT -5
Yeah, this guy isn't really pulling my heart strings. If anything, I'm really sorry those kids have such a crappy poppa that didn't think for a second about how he would be able to provide for them before he brought them into the world. There was a story a couple years ago -- wish I had the specifics so I could find it online -- where a judge was trying to order a man to get a vasectomy and the ACLU (I think) was argued this was outrageous. Which on its face, it sounds like it would be but this man had between 15-20 illegitimate with several different woman and wasn't able to provide support for any of them. On a light hearted note, my friend passed on this funny picture to me. ;D clown.jpg I'm not posting it directly on the board because I'm not 100% sure that it's not "offensive" as it means the V word. Anyway, it's supposed to be another one of those fake motivational posters. [Mods - Just let me know if I should remove the link. I'm not meaning to offend]
|
|
|
Post by shell on Jan 14, 2008 21:01:51 GMT -5
Oh my, that is HILARIOUS Nova!! lol Having that many kids is way beyond ridiculous in my opinion!! Shell
|
|
|
Post by preraph on Jan 14, 2008 22:51:46 GMT -5
Yeah, I love that poster!
|
|
|
Post by princesspedicure on Jan 17, 2008 10:42:35 GMT -5
You're right Preraph. I live in Chicago and there was a story on the news last night about a Section 8 apartment building that had no heat, rats, etc. They interviewed a woman who has a three month old and God only knows how many others. She probably makes more than I do, working.
A friend of mine owns several apartment complexes and she was telling me that she had someone come along who wanted to rent. I believe she said she had 4 or 5 kids, and the government gives her $1,500 a month toward rent. That doesn't include food stamps, welfare, etc. The only advantage for her is the money gets directed deposited into her account so she doesn't have to worry about receiving the rent, but she doesn't rent to them because they tend to trash her properties.
Even with government assistance, why the hell would someone want to struggle like that? I'll never understand it.
|
|
|
Post by kentuckykimmie on Jan 18, 2008 16:07:02 GMT -5
i have lived in several large cities but moved to a small Kentucky town 2 years ago. never have i gotten SUCH an education about "breeders" and welfare, as i have from living here. this town has a Christian food bank charity which only gives away free food with ID proving residency within this county. the population is approximately 55,000. last year they reported having assisted 22,000 people with free food. i know of several on welfare here, it's hard NOT to with those percentages, but one case in particular stands out. i worked with a TWENTY FIVE year old woman who had FIVE children ranging in age from 1-9 years old. she was in some welfare work program and couldn't work more than 15 hours a week or it would negatively affect her benefits. of course she is unmarried, but living with the latest kid's father which isn't reported to the state, and she receives approx. $2000 a month IN CASH from the state, lives in a 4 bed 2 bath house which costs her a whopping $200 a month since it's government subsidized, she and ALL FIVE of the kids have free medical cards, and she gets about $1000 a month on a food debit card. in addition, she takes advantage of the federal tax "refund" allowed for breeders ( i hesitate to use this word in general but it fits her) and last year she picked up a check from H&R Block for about $6700 at tax time. all she ever talked about was those kids and how she had to "try one more time" for a little girl. she pretends to be all about those kids but in reality they spend a great deal of time away from her "visiting" various grandparents, as they all have different fathers, and SHE spends a great deal of time high or drunk. she is PAID to breed, plain and simple. the only thing worse is that her situation is all too common around these parts.
|
|
Doug
Full Member
Posts: 128
|
Post by Doug on Jan 31, 2008 20:39:27 GMT -5
Ha, ha. HAD to post about this.
There's a commercial I just saw for Stop & Shop where this woman is talking about how it's hard for she and her husband "to make ends meet with 2 young children." Apparently she's a teacher (forget what the guy does for a living), and she says it's hard living "on one income," so she REALLY appreciates Stop & Shop for being so good to families with young children.
Ugh...if it's HARD to do something but you're NOT forced to do it (like having a 2nd kid on one income), WHY WOULD YOU SIGN UP FOR THAT sh*t!?!?? It boggles my mind.
It's AMAZING to me how many of these 'family commercials' really DO show the annoying aspects of parenting. (Think screaming kids being out of control...common element). But you really have to watch closely. What makes US different from parents (and people who want to parent) is that we DON'T find children, whether at their best or their worst, all that appealing.
Ha ha, ever notice how many commericals show teenagers being the spoiled, difficult brats they ARE these days?? You could NOT pay me enough to want one of THOSE living in my house. ;D
|
|
|
Post by preraph on Jan 31, 2008 23:23:06 GMT -5
I actually think I could out drama-queen a teenager if I had to.
|
|
|
Post by princesspedicure on Feb 1, 2008 14:09:17 GMT -5
A story on the news last week about ANOTHER woman in Section 8 housing (Chicago)--She has an 11, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 year old...AND SHE'S PREGNANT. The best part is she's going on and on about how she can't pay her heat bill and she should be able to do this on her own. Hmmm...let's think about this one. Maybe if you'd close your legs or go on the pill (which I'm sure she'd get for free), you'd have the money for basic necessities. I just paid a $200 gas bill so cry me a river...
She doesn't have to worry because good ol' Jessie Jackson will show his mug on television and spew all kinds of crap about how dificult it is for her, not once mentioning how she got herself into this problem. Some sucker will come to her rescue--they always do.
|
|
|
Post by preraph on Feb 1, 2008 15:20:38 GMT -5
To me, it's just another form of baby blackmail. The parent is guilty of extreme irresponsibility, but they are using their kids to get free stuff, because everyone knows it's the kids who suffer. That's why I think the welfare system needs to be altered, not done away with at all, but there needs to be accountability. People need to either be unable to help themselves or they need to help themselves to get aid -- and not taking birth control because you don't want to is no excuse, as far as I'm concerned, though it's true that a lot of these same people might be incapable of taking the pill regularly, just as they are obviously disorganized in other aspects of planning. This is where I think free tubals should be offered, at the point when it's obvious the person can't provide for their kids and are living on welfare. They should say after X number of kids, you have an option for a free tubal. However, no further increases in your check if you continue to have kids -- and if you do continue to have kids without providing for them, CPS will come knocking to assess whether you are even a fit parent. Personally, I don't think anyone who is on welfare already and continues to get pregnant should receive any increased funding. It's one thing if you have 3 kids and your husband becomes disabled or walks out or whatever and quite another if you know you're destitute and willfully continue on a path of irresponsibility.
|
|
|
Post by kentuckykimmie on Feb 1, 2008 15:31:55 GMT -5
in 1995 the IRS had my wages garnished because of some unreported income from a job they say i had in 1985. they couldn't say what or where the job was because it was a year that they had changed over from one type of software to another and the records were "lost". this was completely unfounded and an error on their part. they took, without warning, about 20% of my paycheck and i was single and barely making it in the first place. i went straight down to the IRS field office in my city and filled out a bunch of papers and asked for them to lift the garnishment until it was resolved.
the FIRST thing they asked me was if i had any minor children living in my home. when i told her no, she said i couldn't qualify for an emergency stay. CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT? how was i supposed to live while they were taking, in error, nearly 1/4 of my salary? a person with a child is more important to the federal government than one without, it's just that simple. i had this investigated by an IRS consumer advocate and they finally sent an apology letter along with a check for a refund of the garnishment, this took about 2 months. during that time i had to borrow from my parents to survive. had this gone on for the duration of paying the amount they said i owed, it would have taken about TWO YEARS for it to have been paid off.
our own government believes that children, and people WITH children, are more important than adults who have no children. this is topsy turvy, not fair, and makes no sense at all. how are the childfree supposed to "make ends meet", when our own government discriminates against us at every turn?
|
|
|
Post by preraph on Feb 1, 2008 15:39:15 GMT -5
I agree. But it's an uphill battle, and we are in the minority. However, there are occasions when a minority can be powerful if they are vocal enough and they are RIGHT. And we are right, but we need to be always writing our politicians.
|
|
|
Post by happy2bchildfree on Feb 1, 2008 19:26:43 GMT -5
To me, it's just another form of baby blackmail. The parent is guilty of extreme irresponsibility, but they are using their kids to get free stuff, because everyone knows it's the kids who suffer. That's why I think the welfare system needs to be altered, not done away with at all, but there needs to be accountability. People need to either be unable to help themselves or they need to help themselves to get aid -- California made some sweeping welfare reforms (CalWorks) a few years back. No more of the welfare queens sitting at home doing nothing and collecting the check. Recipients MUST either be working or in an approved job training program (or combination of both) 30 hours per week, and last I heard they were trying to up the requirement to 40 hours per week. There is also a five-year lifetime maximum of welfare benefits. Recipients are required to provide continuing proof that they are working and/or attending a job training program. The state picks up the childcare tab but at least the recipents are required to make an effort in order to get aid. I'm pretty sure this has been done in other states as well. They tried to pass a measure that any children born after the application for welfare was made wouldn't be covered, but that part didn't get done. They wanted to do this to deter those who keeping having babies at state expense. I found out about most of this because I had a friend a few years back who ended up on welfare for about a year due to some unfortunate circumstances which were not her fault.
|
|
|
Post by preraph on Feb 1, 2008 20:30:08 GMT -5
Glad to hear that, but you do wonder why that obvious amendment wouldn't fly. It might have done the most good.
|
|