Yea, I understand more where you are coming from much more than I do others. My hostility towards people not working when on welfare does not come from people in your situation really, as you're going to school and looking at the assistance as a temporary thing and you don't seem to take it for granted at all. I also think it's a great thing to want to give back in any way you can, paying it forward is always an awesome thing to do. So, if I came off as harsh, it wasn't intended at you, just I guess something that strikes close to home in general since I know people who abuse the system (and have managed to for years and years)

Unfortunately, there are people that I know IRL who choose not to work simply because they don't want to and want to stay home with their kids. And trust me, I get that because there is nothing I'd like to do more than just be a SAHM. I think that daily as I rush around getting the housework done before I start work. But anyway... the ones I am speaking about are not going to school, they're not doing really much of anything. If they're supposed to be looking for jobs I guess they're doing a good job of avoiding getting any because our area is actually not been hit hard by the state of the economy (it's actually been named one of the most recession proof towns) and there are actually a lot of jobs available. It's an entitlement issue with them, which is completely different then what your situation is. less

Yea, I understand more where you are coming from much more than I do others. My hostility towards people not working when on welfare does not come from people in your situation really, as you're going to school and looking at the assistance as a temporary thing and you don't seem to take it for granted at all. I also think it's a great thing to want to give back in any way you can, paying it forward is always an awesome thing to do. So, if I came off as harsh, it wasn't intended at you, just I guess something that strikes close to home in general since I know people who abuse the system (and have managed to for years and years)

Unfortunately, there are people that I know IRL who choose not to work simply because they don't want to and want to stay home with their kids. And trust me, I get that because there is nothing I'd like to do more than just be a SAHM. I think that daily as I rush around getting the housework done before I start work. But anyway... the ones I am speaking about are not going to school, they're not doing really much of anything. If they're supposed to be looking for jobs I guess they're doing a good job of avoiding getting any because our area is actually not been hit hard by the state of the economy (it's actually been named one of the most recession proof towns) and there are actually a lot of jobs available. It's an entitlement issue with them, which is completely different then what your situation is. less

Agreed. I do love being a SAHM, but at the same time I do feel bad about it sometime because of the fact that I can work.

I wasn't taking what you said personally, sorry if I came off that way. I expected different things to fly around since this is quite a controversial subject. And I can see it from both points of view. Really that article is what offended because they are so black and white about it. "Everyone who falls into this bracket should have to do this and that," is extremely rude to say, whether it is about anyone in any situation. I can't stand that stuff.

It was mostly the comment of "There is approximately 1.7 million women on welfare to date. It is safe to say that out of all these women, none are in a position to raise a child. " from that article.

I know what they are saying as far as money wise, but just because someone doesn't have money doesn't mean anything. My kid has clean (cute :p )clothes that fit, food in his belly and love off the wall and I feel like that is all we need to be happy. less

Agreed. I do love being a SAHM, but at the same time I do feel bad about it sometime because of the fact that I can work.

I wasn't taking what you said personally, sorry if I came off that way. I expected different things to fly around since this is quite a controversial subject. And I can see it from both points of view. Really that article is what offended because they are so black and white about it. "Everyone who falls into this bracket should have to do this and that," is extremely rude to say, whether it is about anyone in any situation. I can't stand that stuff.

It was mostly the comment of "There is approximately 1.7 million women on welfare to date. It is safe to say that out of all these women, none are in a position to raise a child. " from that article.

I know what they are saying as far as money wise, but just because someone doesn't have money doesn't mean anything. My kid has clean (cute :p )clothes that fit, food in his belly and love off the wall and I feel like that is all we need to be happy. less

Agreed. I do love being a SAHM, but at the same time I do feel bad about it sometime because of the fact that I can work.

I wasn't taking what you said personally, sorry if I came off that way. I expected different things to fly around since this is quite a controversial subject. And I can see it from both points of view. Really that article is what offended because they are so black and white about it. "Everyone who falls into this bracket should have to do this and that," is extremely rude to say, whether it is about anyone in any situation. I can't stand that stuff.

It was mostly the comment of "There is approximately 1.7 million women on welfare to date. It is safe to say that out of all these women, none are in a position to raise a child. " from that article.

I know what they are saying as far as money wise, but just because someone doesn't have money doesn't mean anything. My kid has clean (cute :p )clothes that fit, food in his belly and love off the wall and I feel like that is all we need to be happy. less

Wow, that's insanely frustrating. I feel your aggravation there. I would have to fight the urge to slap some sense into them. I hate those few bad apples spoiling the barrel for everyone else. But I don't think those people should ruin it for the rest of the country because there are so many people using the system the right way and actually stepping up to take control of their lives.

There will always be people abusing the system and cheating. Just like how there will always be contributors on EF that point farm and aren't here for the real community togetherness like we are. But that doesn't mean dismantling the point system is the answer. less

Heh...

"We don't need to teach kids about sex in school. It's the parents job!"

"Why don't those poor people just stop having kids?"

Gee, I wonder. Being poor is a cycle. It sounds like a lot of people, who have never had to experience actually getting assistance, are being pretty judgmental about what they *think* poor people are doing. Even if you think you know what goes on in someone else's home, you don't. We're all doing the best we can with what we have and it's probably a good idea for us to spend more time focusing on our own lives and problems instead of judging other people for the ones they're having.

Welfare for individuals doesn't really cost us that much money. It's a hot-button issue that the government uses as a distraction for all the other shit they're spending money on. Ya know, like pointless wars (in other countries and on abstract concepts like terror), corporate welfare, and bailing out huge banks while they let millions of people lose their homes.

Should poor people be mindful about the cost of raising kids when they have them? Yes, and most of them are. They live that shit every day. The ones on welfare are meeting with their case worker, monthly, to report their income, provide proof that they've applied for a certain number of jobs each week, taking classes on how to go to job interviews, wasting a days work or the possibility of applying for more jobs when they have to spend it sitting in the DFCS office to receive their vouchers. They try to figure out how they're going to afford groceries when they get a $.50 raise at work and their food stamps get cut back from $150 a month to $60 a month. They get to see the disappointment in their kid's face when they can't swing the money for school pictures, birthday gifts for their friends, yearbooks, soccer and cheerleading.

Believe me. They fucking know it's hard to be poor and have kids. And when people who don't know what it's like look down their noses at them and discuss whether or not they should be treated like farm animals, it just pisses me off. less

Oh defnitely, I agree that it should not be taken away or ruin it for everybody, I just think that the rules need to be followed more in all areas. I am sure in a lot of areas they are, but in a lot of other areas people can fly under the radar and therefore cheat the system. I try not to get involved with it because unfortunately the main person who irritates me with this is a family member and another main one is a close friend's family member..I just steer clear..but I do know that they have been on every type of assistance out there for the last 18 years. They've moved back and forth between different states, so I don't know if that aids them in being able to carry it on so long or what. Like I said, I steer clear because I will just blow up and it will do no one any good and will just cause tension for those that are in the middle of it and are not the guilty parties.

Regardless though, the issue of mandatory BC for those on welfare I think is a no go in any situation. And I also think the idea that people on welfare aren't capable of taking care of their children is BS too. Everyone has hard times, some are lucky to have support and can get themselves out of it without assistance, but sometimes that isn't the case and they need that help to pull them through. The system needs to be in place or there would be some people who are genuinely trying to get on their feet lacking the help they need.

Though I do think that those who continually have kids that they cannot take care of (and by that I mean having kids taken away for neglect NOT for being on welfare when having kids..being on welfare does not mean you're not a good mom) should be seriously counselled and steered towards sterilization or at least some kind of long term birth control like an IUD. Unfortunately both the family member and the friend's family member have had children taken away for neglect or mistreatment and then continued to have children afterwards while still in the same situation. less

Oh defnitely, I agree that it should not be taken away or ruin it for everybody, I just think that the rules need to be followed more in all areas. I am sure in a lot of areas they are, but in a lot of other areas people can fly under the radar and therefore cheat the system. I try not to get involved with it because unfortunately the main person who irritates me with this is a family member and another main one is a close friend's family member..I just steer clear..but I do know that they have been on every type of assistance out there for the last 18 years. They've moved back and forth between different states, so I don't know if that aids them in being able to carry it on so long or what. Like I said, I steer clear because I will just blow up and it will do no one any good and will just cause tension for those that are in the middle of it and are not the guilty parties.

Regardless though, the issue of mandatory BC for those on welfare I think is a no go in any situation. And I also think the idea that people on welfare aren't capable of taking care of their children is BS too. Everyone has hard times, some are lucky to have support and can get themselves out of it without assistance, but sometimes that isn't the case and they need that help to pull them through. The system needs to be in place or there would be some people who are genuinely trying to get on their feet lacking the help they need.

Though I do think that those who continually have kids that they cannot take care of (and by that I mean having kids taken away for neglect NOT for being on welfare when having kids..being on welfare does not mean you're not a good mom) should be seriously counselled and steered towards sterilization or at least some kind of long term birth control like an IUD. Unfortunately both the family member and the friend's family member have had children taken away for neglect or mistreatment and then continued to have children afterwards while still in the same situation. less

See, now, seeing kids being neglected or mistreated just gets me seeing red. I definitely would be just as volatile to those people as you are. And since I know I wouldn't be able to hold back my opinions and anger, I'd steer clear too. I sure hope those kids don't repeat the cycle and that they break free and really make something of themselves. I send out hugs to them, wherever they are. less

You should know that for some people waiting until they are more financially stable is not an option. I have a friend who I have known since we were 4, she finished teaching school and her and her new husband are both working as substitute teachers. I don't know if you know anything about substituting, but it is a very unstable work situation, you never know when you will have money coming in, sometimes it is a lot, other times hardly anything at all. However it is a necessary step in working as a full time teacher, it builds reputation in schools which puts you in a position where you are likely to be hired when a position becomes available. Now I don't know about you but I think that teaching is a very respectable job.

This same girl however has a mother who had a hormonal cancer, which is a cancer that is greatly effected by the types and amount of hormones in a persons body. This means that my friend has a higher likelyhood of developing this same type of cancer. Now, the problem is that every year that she does NOT get pregnant after the age of 26, the likelyhood of her developing this cancer goes up by 10%. She is already at an increased risk, so the question is, does she have a baby now? Lowering her risk of cancer substantially but bringing a baby into a less stable financial situation. Or does she wait, increasing her likelyhood of developing cancer, being in an even less stable financial situation when she can't work and cancer related bills are sucking her and her husbands finances dry, and then possibly dying leaving her child with no mother?

This is actually the case for many women, as cancer risk factors and exposure to carcinogenic materials ais on the rise. Breast cancer is far more common in women who waited and had children later in life. On top of that, there are increased risks during pregnancy, to both the mother and baby every year after a woman is 35.

How about the increased risk of breast cancer linked to the estrogen in birth control pills? There are A LOT of factors one must consider.

This is a system designed to help people temporarily, so that they have a better chance of becomming self reliant later. There are many many programs attached to Welfare, at least in Canada, aimed towards providing funding for work training, going back to school to become better educated and career ready, or simply just finding any sort of work that is out there to be had.
Somebody being in a situation where they need this system and take advantage of it, so that they can better their lives, is not something you should hold against them. Many MANY women end up on the system because they are in a relationship where the man works and wants the woman to stay home and take care of their children. The relationship breaks down and the woman is left alone, with children to support and no job or education beyond highschool or some college. Thus leaving them in a situation where they would be lucky to find a job that pays more than minimum wage, which depending on how many children they have, is not enough to support their family. It is not their fault they are in the situation they are in. They did not have children when they could not support them.

I agree fully that people abusing the system is wrong, and having babies solely to increase your welfare payments is FUCKED. A child should be brought into the world because the parents wanted a child to love and adore. For no other reason. less

Not sure why you felt the need to single me out for attack when I was not even the first one to voice that opinion, but I'm sure you had your reasons. I don't post on these boards very often so I guess I'm not fully aware of what opinions shouldn't be expressed these days. Sorry if my input offended you. I think I'll just leave this end of things to Michele from now on. less

i can see the point of view of the person who wrote the aticle. but if it was mandatory people would still get pregnant anyway, and i dont agree that they should make you take it. That's kind of controlling your life. i think the author is trying to say that people on welfare should not continue to have children if they cant even provide for themselves. i don't want to pay for other peoples birth control through my taxes but I also don't want to pay for them to have kids. less

I don't think people on welfare should all be forced to be on birth control. It's unfair to group people together by stereotypes. I do, though, think that free birth control should be available to every woman. The state of Michigan has a program in place called Plan First, which provides women between 19 and 40 with free birth control and gynecologist visits if they are in need. I use the program, since I don't make enough to afford a yearly check up and pills that are $35 a month. It would be cheaper for tax payers and the state to provide everyone assistance in birth control than it would be for them to provide care for pregnant women and their children, which is probably why at least Michigan is doing it. less

Personally, I feel that a person on welfare is on it because they do not have money. Therefore, they cannot AFFORD to have a child. Until they have the means to fully support and take care of a child, they should not have one, no - it is a disservice to the child themselves. Aside for that though, they are not incompetent or unintelligent - having no money means none of this. less

Hmmm. I wonder why the health department charged me for my birth control before then? Maybe it wasn't in place, that was a few years ago, but I live in Michigan and remember that the health department charged me the 40$ a pop for my depo shot.

I have medicaid now so at least that pays for my birth control/etc.

I don't see how women can have so many kids anyways, one is enough for me!

@girlwithfire, I never have periods either due to the depo shot. I didnt think I could get pregnant, but here I am with my 11 month old baby boy! But I was off of it for a year before I did get pregnant.

I don't know if I've mentioned it already,but I am doing a paper on this and since researching further I have decided to switch my birth control to a different method. Even though depo is extremely convenient for me (no periods, one shot every three months) I prefer to preserve my health in the long run. less

I think that there are too many rich people having children. I say that the rich should not be allowed to breed, because they are stealing money from the working class to send their children off to expensive private schools.

The class war is the only war worth fighting! less

Has Planned Parenthood changed or is the free birth control only available in some areas? When I was using Planned Parenthood...about I guess 12 years ago or so, the birth control pills were 45.00 a month there. Considering I was in school and only had a part time job that was a LOT of money. Luckily I had a boyfriend who had a slightly more than part time job and he contributed quite a bit to it, but had I been on my own for it I wouldn't have been able to afford it.

I agree about the sterilization being available to more people and being completely up to the person. My husband had a vasectomy when he was 27 and the doctor initially did not want to do it. We already had three children so he eventually did agree to it and luckily it was fully covered under our insurance. But, I know that a lot of people have a really hard time getting it when they don't have kids, which is just not right. less

It sounds just like Eugenics part II to me and is equally wrong and disturbing. Here in the U.S. no one should agree with forcing people to give up any right based on their socioeconomic status. And if anyone is unfamiliar with the Eugenics Project, born out of a cousin of Charles Darwin here in the U.S., Virginia, I think, you should look it up. The history was well hidden.

I do think that people should be reasonable and at least try not to have babies they can't care for, but that's personal responsibility. And if they're bad enough parents, social services/child welfare can step in. But seriously, poor parents does not equal bad parents. They have just as much love, support, and morality as people with money. And the rich can easily become bankrupt and the poor can definitely alter their circumstances as well. less