Stop having so many damn kids; population control, anyone?

[Carlene 12]

As a long term member of Al Anon, I beg to differ. These programs are created around 'a power greater than yourself'. This does not have to be 'God'.

Thank you for clearing that up, Leatha. I have seen AA/NA/Al Anon work miracles, even for people who had absolutely zero religious beliefs, and that is no exaggeration. It is a very successful, worthwhile organization that does good with every dime it receives, whether from public or private funds.

[dotofoz 0]

You have obviously not suffered from hunger - genuine, day in and day out hunger. There are children in this country who do. There are children in America who eat mayonaise sandwiches for dinner on a regular basis. Maybe it's because their parents traded the food stamps for booze. Maybe it's because $150.00 won't buy enough food to last all month. Or maybe it's just because no one cares about them.

If you have never visited a homeless shelter or a Soup kitchen, I highly recommend it. Everyone should see the face of hopelessness first hand. And if you assume that Child Protective Services would not allow children to live like that, you would be wrong. I have never been to a shelter that had no children in residence. Imagine going to the pound, only with children instead of dogs.

· National Homeless Estimates: 700,000 per night(National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, 1999).

· Thirty-one million Americans now live in hunger or on the edge of hunger. (State Government Responses to the Food Assistance Gap 2000, Third Annual Report and 50 State Survey, December 2000).

· One in five people in a Soup kitchen line is a child (America's Second Harvest, Hunger 1997: The Faces & Facts).

· In 1999, approximately 12 million American children were hungry or at risk of hunger (United States Department of Agriculture, Household Food Security in the United States, Fall 2000).

· Families are the largest and fastest growing segment of the homeless population. In 2000, requests for emergency food assistance from families with children increased by 16% in American cities over the past year, the highest rate of increase since the recession of 1991 (U.S. Conference of Mayors, Hunger and Homelessness in America's Cities, December 2000).

· Nearly 1 in 5 children (more than 12 million) in the U.S. live in poverty (U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, October 2000 Update). The U.S. child poverty rate is higher than that of most other industrialized nations.

· In 1999, more than half of all food stamp recipients, 9.3 million people were children (Children's Defense Fund, Poverty Matters: The Cost of Child Poverty in America, 2000).

· Nearly 9 million children in the U.S. live in working poor families (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, The Poverty Despite Work Handbook, 1999).

· Research indicates that 40% of homeless men have served in the armed forces, as compared to 34% of the general adult male population (Rosenheck, Robert, Homeless Veterans, in Homelessness in America, 1996).

· Recent research indicates that even mild under-nutrition experienced by young children during critical periods of growth may lead to reductions in physical growth and affect brain development (The Links Between Nutrition and Cognitive Development of Children, 1998, Tufts University School of Nutrition Science and Policy).

Unfortunately there is a limit that you can help someone. I think the responsibility should fall on the parents (yes, even the sperm donor 'fathers' that deny paternity), period, not Uncle Sam. Assistance to a point is OK, but where do you draw the line? Life is about choices and as a taxpayer, we as a whole should NOT be taking care of everyone that has made wrong choices for a lifetime, it's financially and practically impossible. If that were the case, why should anybody work or want to better themselves? I am trying to instill in my TODDLER that no matter what you do OR don't do there is a consequence. Charity and helping someone out is one thing, but footing the bill for deadbeats, addicts, and irresponsible people isn't practical. Also, if you can't afford to have another child, why keep having them???? I want another child, but I know I can't afford one, so therefore, I'm not having one now! It doesn't take a master's degree in nuclear physics to figure that one out.

Once again....:deadhorse:

[dotofoz 0]

I agree, Missy! I have the same feelings about organ donation. If you aren't willing to donate yours, don't you DARE ask for one in return - not for yourself, not for your child, your parents, or your spouse.

I hope you're sitting down Carlene, but I actually AGREE with you on this one!

[Carlene 12]

I think the responsibility should fall on the parents (yes, even the sperm donor 'fathers' that deny paternity), period, not Uncle Sam. Assistance to a point is OK, but where do you draw the line? Life is about choices and as a taxpayer, we as a whole should NOT be taking care of everyone that has made wrong choices for a lifetime, it's financially and practically impossible. If that were the case, why should anybody work or want to better themselves?

Well of course it's the responsibility of the parents, but if they don't step up to the plate and take care of their kids, should the rest of us just stand by and let whatever happens, happen? The victim should not be held accountable.

I am not, by the way, talking about "taking care" of the entire US population. I am talking about food. Just food. And you are saying what? If their parents don't feed them, let them starve?

[Wheetsin 714]

Here's a cousin's situation:

Wealthy parents. Not rich, but wealthy. She got pregnant in highschool during her (I think) junior year. Still living at home during that time. Dropped out. Eventually got her GED. Got a job as a waitress and moved out into a small rental home with the father. Father was a high school dropout and worked labor at a factory. Had a hard time keeping a job. She started going to college part-time and continued working as a waitress because they were flexible with her school hours.

She starts getting tired of the father's inability to get or hold a job, let alone a good job, so she breaks up with him. Parents encourage her to return home (she's 19 at this point), but she declines, opting to get a small apartment. Parents are paying her tuition, have paid for her car, are paying her insurance, she's on their gas card, etc. So pretty much her only expenses are utilities and rent. She even goes over to their house for most of her meals, and they buy formula & diapers.

Current state is that she lives in an apartment, still works as a waitress, still goes to college part time, father is no longer in the picture. Her paycheck goes mostly toward her rent & utilities, clothes, and extras. Her parents still foot the bill for her car, food, etc. She is on public assistance receiving food stamps, medical, and a MO program that allows a mileage reimbursement plan for students. So she gets paid mileage for her drive from home to school and back.

Her parents are encouraging her to move back in and save the money that would otherwise go to rent & utilities for downpayment on a small house. She doesn't want to live with them because they're "strict" and would make her "follow rules", so she continues to live in her apartment, which means that she has to get public assistance to pay for the groceries she gets. Parents are more than capable of carrying her load, financially, and are willing to because she's their daughter, but on the other side she's an adult and is declining their offers.

Do you think she should be eligible to receive the assistance?

[dotofoz 0]

Here's a cousin's situation:

Wealthy parents. Not rich, but wealthy. She got pregnant in highschool during her (I think) junior year. Still living at home during that time. Dropped out. Eventually got her GED. Got a job as a waitress and moved out into a small rental home with the father. Father was a high school dropout and worked labor at a factory. Had a hard time keeping a job. She started going to college part-time and continued working as a waitress because they were flexible with her school hours.

She starts getting tired of the father's inability to get or hold a job, let alone a good job, so she breaks up with him. Parents encourage her to return home (she's 19 at this point), but she declines, opting to get a small apartment. Parents are paying her tuition, have paid for her car, are paying her insurance, she's on their gas card, etc. So pretty much her only expenses are utilities and rent. She even goes over to their house for most of her meals, and they buy formula & diapers.

Current state is that she lives in an apartment, still works as a waitress, still goes to college part time, father is no longer in the picture. Her paycheck goes mostly toward her rent & utilities, clothes, and extras. Her parents still foot the bill for her car, food, etc. She is on public assistance receiving food stamps, medical, and a MO program that allows a mileage reimbursement plan for students. So she gets paid mileage for her drive from home to school and back.

Her parents are encouraging her to move back in and save the money that would otherwise go to rent & utilities for downpayment on a small house. She doesn't want to live with them because they're "strict" and would make her "follow rules", so she continues to live in her apartment, which means that she has to get public assistance to pay for the groceries she gets. Parents are more than capable of carrying her load, financially, and are willing to because she's their daughter, but on the other side she's an adult and is declining their offers.

Do you think she should be eligible to receive the assistance?

No. In her case it seems she doesn't need it. Because her parents are 'strict' is pretty lame if you ask me. Being eligble and actually needing help are two different things. If she was declining their offers for another reason, like she was being responsible and hell's bent on making it on her own, then that's a different story. She should be thankful her family's that supportive. What kind of life is she giving the baby? I'm assuming the apt she's living in is not the best if she's on some kind of assistance. Also, is she a being a responsible mom where the child's overall welfare is concerned or she she too busy partying in her spare time? Alot of unknowns her.....Well, you asked.....

[Carlene 12]

Do you think she should be eligible to receive the assistance?

If she qualifies, yes. That means IF she discloses honestly all her assets, income (including gifts from parents), school/work hours completed, etc. What her parents are able or willing to provide financially has no bearing on anything, as she is an adult. I suspect she is not being completely honest with her caseworker, however. Gifts in kind or cash count as income for the month in which they are received.

This scenario is no different than all those young women on welfare who have cash-dispensing boyfriends on the side (no disrespect to your cousin, incidentally).

If your aunt and uncle cut off the money supply, she will move back home. In the meantime, they are enabling her to not only break the law, but to hone her skills as a master manipulator. Your cousin's education isn't all coming from the university.

[Wheetsin 714]

I did ask. And no answers are going to bother me, I wanted to know what people thought. Which is why I reserved my opinion. Here are the answers as best as I know (I don't live there, so I hear most of this word of mouth):

What kind of life is she giving the baby?

I believe she does well as a mother. Most material things he has are from the parents/grandparents. My grandmother or her parents watches him while she's at work/school, and I think she's pretty good about staying home with him when she's not.

I'm assuming the apt she's living in is not the best if she's on some kind of assistance.

Her apartment is pretty nice. That's part of why she's on the assistance. It's not huge, and not glamorous, nor is it a "slum". I'd say it's a little above average, just from knowing the neighborhood it's in. I've not seen it so I can't provide a lot of detail, but she was raised with a silver spoon, so I doubt much of anything would be substandard. E.g. she once said that her baby would never wear clothing that wasn't name brand, or that was second hand. And as far as I know, it holds true.

Also, is she a being a responsible mom where the child's overall welfare is concerned

As far as I know.

or she she too busy partying in her spare time? Alot of unknowns her.....Well, you asked.....

She's not a partier. If she's not at school or work, she's at the apt with the baby or at her parents' or some other member of the family's house. She haws friends over sometimes, but really doesn't go out. And I can say that her parents are extraordinarily strict. Like - to a serious degree. To a degree that you could debate abuse (verbal & mental, not physical). And I can say that seeing her grow-up in the environment she did, it doesn't surprise me that she's opposed to living with them. Especially now that she's tasted freedom. I'm not saying that to defend or excuse, just to try and represent her side a little bit. It's still an option, and not living with her parents is still a choice she's making, at the system's expense.

[anonemouse 1]

Yes, but in the event of some catastrophic event, such as earthquake, tornado, flood, hurricane, would you accept their help or would you refuse it based on your beliefs or lack thereof?

I would accept their help only if they didn't put any requirements on their help. If they said I would have to go to services or pray or thank God for the help I was getting, then no.

And on the AA issue, some courts have made rulings that say a prisoner or parolee can't be forced to attend their meeting, because (and this is what the judge said) they were obviously religious.

[Carlene 12]

It's still an option, and not living with her parents is still a choice she's making, at the system's expense.

It's not the system that's broken in this case, it's your cousin's integrity. Even if her parents were Rockefellers, they still would not be responsible for providing her and her child with food, clothing, and shelter. And it's a "choice" only in the sense that robbing a bank is a choice. What she's doing is breaking the law - period. And someone needs to report her. Have you considered doing so?

[Wheetsin 714]

I don't disagree. I just wanted to put it out there, I was curious as to what the different perspectives would be.

I have not reported it, but I know it has been reported. At least twice. Unfortunately the county services are so overwhelmed and understaffed (they've been in intermittent hiring freezes for the last two years, and have yet to replace anyone who left in that time) that I doubt this instance would be very high in their priority list. I would suspect it's another instance of the caseworker knowing that what their beiong told isn't true, but not having the resources to do anything about it. I know my mother, who supervises income maintenance, is often in the same position.

[Carlene 12]

I have a very good friend who subsidized a daughter and her alcoholic husband for a long time (still does, in fact). They did not apply for food stamps, etc because there are work/school requirements that they weren't willing to meet, but the daughter became pregnant and applied for Medicaid. The baby came early and lived a month, all in NICU. She also had cardiac surgery. The bills came to over half a million dollars.

My good friend is a Republican. She is very anti-welfare. Except in her daughter's case. She has all kinds of reasons why HER situation is "different". As would we all, I suspect.

[Wheetsin 714]

I tiped bahd.

[skyeblu79 0]

If she qualifies, yes. That means IF she discloses honestly all her assets, income (including gifts from parents), school/work hours completed, etc. What her parents are able or willing to provide financially has no bearing on anything, as she is an adult. I suspect she is not being completely honest with her caseworker, however. Gifts in kind or cash count as income for the month in which they are received.

This scenario is no different than all those young women on welfare who have cash-dispensing boyfriends on the side (no disrespect to your cousin, incidentally).

If your aunt and uncle cut off the money supply, she will move back home. In the meantime, they are enabling her to not only break the law, but to hone her skills as a master manipulator. Your cousin's education isn't all coming from the university.

I agree..I think she should too.

[anonemouse 1]

In either instance, I have never seen anyone coerced into anything

But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I think you and I agree with at least one thing, that conditions shouldn't be set on giving help. People shouldn't force others to sacrifice a huge part of themselves (their personal beliefs) in order to eat or sleep in a safe place.

I applaud people that are truly helping others just to know they helped another human being. Where I draw the line is when they have conditions on that assistance that force people to sacrifice their own religious or personal beliefs in order to receive that help.