Should there a limit on how many kids welfare families have?

billy brite

It's not all the womans doing. The males are the most guilty for not using protection and refusing or not having the finances to support the children. I think a better way, would be giving the male the option of a free vasectomy. With DNA testing now enabling true identification of the father, the men that consistantly impregnate women should be encouraged to cease, or be put in jail. Why should the men be given a "free ride"?

Did you ever notice that whenever the news showes starving and bloated babies in Africa, you never see any men in the picture?

Ask yourself this question," Can America come to this if the population exceeds the capabilities of paying to provide for the new born"?

Ryan F

YES! and yes this is America and we don't have the right to tell someone how many kids they have, but what gives some one the right to take a portion of my paycheck to pay for someone else's 14 kids?

.....

if they cant support one the shouldnt have another. let alone 14!! but like you said it is america, so just let her go about her business and dont worry about it.

janice h

No there should be no limit. However the amount of the welfare check will not be increased beyond the original amount approved. In other words if you get approved for welfare and you have two kids all you will receive while on welfare is the amount allocated for a single parent with 2 kids. That would stop the have a baby get a raise crowd.

shamrock

Since the welfare laws changed, these people HAVE to have on kid after another. The law now only allows a person to collect cash benefits for a total of 2 years over their lifetime. So, in order to keep getting checks, they have to pop out at least one kid every two years. Instead of an individual limit, they need to make it a FAMILY limit. Then there would be no incentive to keep having kids you can't afford.

wizjp

Interesting concept; but it's a road we shouldn't want to go down as a people or a government.

Too much interference. Better to structure the welfare system differently

southernbigf00t

First, what are we defining as "welfare" for your purposes? Are you referring to food stamps, medical assistance, cash benefits, government work assistance, what?
There are limits and regulations on each of these, and other benefit, programs. Many assistance programs are only granted to individuals and families on the condition that are working towards providing for themselves. Also, the benefit limits on these programs do not incentivize "abuse by procreation." According to your logic, devout Catholics, whose stringent limits on birth control are imposed by their church would be ineligible for assistance. Also, you should review whether "welfare moms" are really the true economic and social drain that you propose. Under you paradigm, that the value of assistance the government gives should be in direct correlation to extrinsic worth of the individual, an elderly person that was not well educated, did not serve in the armed forces, whose children are of no real "value" to society, should not receive money that they didn't earn. Neither should the mentally ill, or the disabled.
The Supreme Court has used the 6th Amendment to determine whether the benefits of welfare recipients could be denied. The rights of the indigent are Constitutionally guaranteed right along with speech and bearing arms.
Good Luck

cuda c

if you think there should be limits you should go live in china!

kitty_cat_claws_99

while there is no limit to the number of children you choose to have, there is a limit to the number of children the State will offer assistance for if you are already receiving welfare and continue to have children. Further, the number of years you can remain on welfare without working has been limited.

realchineseprincess

IF the GOV set a rule that these people have to do communite work for certain hours per day so to recieve welfare, Maybe it can reduce the number of people who take advantage of the system. Or don't give them cash, give them food and shelther. When the kids grow up, they will realize the different of life from work and no work.

2conservative4u

yes there should be a limit, in our nieghbohood too many welfare moms with minimum of four children, i like children but dont; want to bring any in this world i can't provide for myself. To many of these families seem to be drug related, black and white alike.

O'Really

I'm not sure...forcing the mothers to get abortions would be cheaper than birth control...at least that's the cay CHINA DOES IT !!!

mrskevkev

No I don't think they should have a limit. That's a personal thing, not something for the government to decide.

Mundy

Yes there should. I feel that in order to receive welfare you must submit yourself to 5 year depo shots and monthly drug testing.

Will never happen though, the more welfare babies there are, the larger the future voting base for the Dems will be.

fdm215

No. There's no real point in doing so in part because the average family size is actually quite small. Its generally a bad idea to make policy based on unrepresentative anecdotal cases.

Should we ban assistance to lower middle class and middle class couples who opt to use IVF to create HUGE families through multiple births and THEN ask everybody else to help support their kids?

Doshie

We have the same problem in the UK, and I reckon there should be limits. Theres been stories in the news about people openly saying they keep having children so they get loads of welfare money - most these people are "earning" double the national average income from this.
But, like you said about "land of the free", it will never happen...

Open your eyes

How about the people that can afford them start having a large family instead of one child and stop being so greedy and hording all their money when they could be conceiving the next Kings of the world? It's true that the less well off repopulate the world. Without them the rich wouldn't have all those bums on seats making them a lot of money. You understand? The system is really simple when you look at it with open eyes. You know there are so many idiots in this world asking stupid questions it is no wonder the rich sit back and laugh at all their peasant minions. The rich are ruthless people. They haven't gotten where they are today by playing tiddlywinks everyday. They know that the poor will shag and produce plenty of consumers. lol I would love for idiots such as yourself to try and pass a law that equates to poor people being told that they cannot do what they do best. See if you take away what the poor have been getting for years tomorrow and don't replace it with a job of some sort that keeps them in the manner they have been accustomed to, then you will see it is you the worker bee that will suffer greatly because these people will target your homes and your cars and your cash machines and any other things that you have to survive. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: