saywhat wrote:
scorned wrote:
B2008 - I think that your hypothetical family should have waited until they could afford to raise a child on one income before conceiving.
I completely agree, and if they couldn't wait then they should be given assistance for the child only and the non working parent should be given X amount of weeks to find a job. If both parents are not working at the end of that time frame, then the assistance stops and someone is assigned to check the welfare of the child every so often. I know I can sit here and give my opinion on this but as I am typing I realize that every solution only creates another issue. GGGRRRR Capable parents just need to get off their lazy a*ses and work. That is the ONLY solution that doesn't pose another problem, but we all know that will never happen. The system should remain in effect for those who genuinely need it, but the abusers should be cut of immediately. Example... you receive assistance and have one child. If you give birth to a second, third, ect. child and you are still on assistance then you should be removed from assistance and STERILIZED
Jesus H. Christ. There are some draconian people in America. How about if you are a deadbeat dad, the state can cut your peener off, too?
So, situation here. "Lazy" parent gets off her --- (since the assumption starting out with is that it is the *mother* who refuses to get a job) and gets herself a nice minimum wage job to keep the family afloat. Let's assume $6.00/hr working 40 hours a week, for sake of the situation which = $12,480/year - taxes (10% for ease) $1248 = $11,232 - daycare (@ average $679/mo) - $8148 = a whopping $4332/year mom has earned for the family. This does not include any other incidental expenses associated with working (work clothes, transportation, etc). Can someone explain to me how the "lazy' stay at home mom has pushed her family ahead by doing this?
Let's go further into the future now...child is too old to be in daycare (13+) and now is a latchkey kid. Child gets in trouble a lot because there is no adult to supervise them after school. We're talking vandalism, maybe some shoplifting or perhaps knocking up his girlfriend. Who do we blame there? I mean, the parents are out there earning that money to make sure they aren't sucking off the government teat so do we cut them some slack because of it or do we also condemn them to hell because they weren't able to be in 2 places at once?
With providing assistance now, you have the potential of significant tax savings down the line. Float someone some food stamp money now and potentially avoid the medical costs of a teen pregnancy or the incarceration costs of a juvie later.
You can't have it both ways, folks. You just have to decide what is an acceptable outcome. Me? I think an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.