Wayne Boatwright > fnord
5.247:

> On Sun 14 Sep 2008 06:12:28p, Saerah Gray told us...
>
>> Wayne Boatwright > fnord
>> 5.247:
>>
>>> On Sun 14 Sep 2008 03:53:54p, Saerah Gray told us...
>>>
>>>> So children should starve because their parents can't or won't get
>>>> a job?
>>>
>>> No, the children should be taken away from them and put up for
>>> adoption. The kids shouldn't have parent(s) who won't provide for
>>> them, and the parent(s) shouldn't be allowed to keep them.
>>
>> Wayne, if the children go into the (already bursting at the seams)
>> foster care system, the government is still paying out money to those
>> who raise them. Not everyone on welfare goes on it when their child
>> is born; are you insinuating that the working class should be
>> disallowed from having children?
>
> I'm not insinuating anything. I'm *stating* that welfare *abusers*
> (abusers for any reason) should have either severely limited or no
> benefits at all. And, yes, under those circumstances, I believe the
> children should be removed to a better envirornment. Further, that
> the adult recipients should be limited from having further children.
>

You must know very little about the foster care system, if you think
that removing a child from their family of origin *simply because their
parents have had unfortunate circumstances*, and place them in the home
of a stranger, who is gaining material benefit from the government for
their efforts, is better for that child.

>> If I lost my job, the likelihood that I would be able to find another
>> with equal pay and benefits would be very slim. Granted, I have
>> family who would either help me out financially until I could find a
>> comparable job, or at least offer me a place to live with my
>> daughter, but if not fot that, I would be forced to apply for aid.
>> Yes, some people abuse they system. But saying that there should be
>> no safety net in a country as well-to-do as ours is, and that people
>> who find themselves in unfortunate situations, often beyond their
>> control, should have their children taken from them, is horrific, to
>> say the least. What's next, 'A Modest Proposal" ?
>
> I am not suggesting that you fit into this category. Many
> conscienctious individuals and families end up on the welfare rolls
> for some period of time, often through no fault of their own. These
> are not the people I'm talking about. They need help, and while
> they're receiving it, they most often find other employment and get on
> with their lives. However, where I live, welfare abuse in any
> conceivable form is prevalent. Those for whom welfare is an expected
> way of life do not deserve the benefits. And, frankly, I don't give a
> damn what happens to them. "Professional welfare families" should
> most definitely have their kids removed. They might think twice about
> having another eight kids, since they wouldn't be receiving benefits
> for them. Sometimes horrific measures are necessary.
>

The thing is, where do you draw the line? If you have a small child, and
are on welfare, and cannot support yourself on the minimum wage jobs
available to you, and certainly would not be able to afford childcare
even if you could afford shelter and food and clothing, what the hell
are you supposed to do?

How do you differentiate between use and abuse of the system?

> When I lost my job in 2002, I couldn't even get medical assistance
> through the state's program, which I sorely needed. The reason?
> Because I was single, had no children, and owned a 10 year old car!
>

All of which put you in a better position to improve your situation than
most. Give yourself a pat on the back there.


> Don't even begin to try to tell me that I was less deserving or that
> this was fair, when some people who have never worked a day in their
> life go trailing into the welfare office with five or eight kids and
> get everything under the sun, including absolutely free medical care.
>

They don't get "everything under the sun". I realize that people *do*
abuse the system, but the example above is hardly the average person on
welfare. As I said earlier, do you own a home? You get welfare.
Differentiating one kind of government assistance from another is rather
unfair.

> I don't have a solution, but I will clearly state that the welfare
> system is seriously ****ed up.
>

You already said that you think a solution would be to take children
away from their parents, and put them into the homes of strangers while
their parents starve would be a solution.

And I think that is rather sad, myself.

--
Saerah

"Welcome to Usenet, Biatch! Adapt or haul ass!"
- some hillbilly from FL