pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
Section 8, Welfare and Ethics a case discussion...
#1
I was just wanting to get a read on what people think of this scenario I encountered, it is a 100% true story though. I'm not going to go into the specifics of who these people were, but some years ago some friends I know rented a house to some Section 8 tenants who were also getting other public assistance in addition to the housing benefit. One mom, one dad, the family was white with 4 kids, they were also extremely devout Christians. The house they rented from the people I know was a 4 Bedroom 2 Bath, ~1600-1800 sq ft (I don't remember the exact number).

Here's the catch. The 4 kids were all different ages starting at 6 years old going up to 12, ALL of them between the two parents had severe mental defects from birth to the point that they had a live-in nurse that took care of the kids (I think they were all born with Down Syndrome, but I could be wrong). So this family was costing the tax payers a huge amount of money overall and costing even more as time progressed. The parents had some bad combination of genes such that they knew without a doubt that any children they had would have a very high probability of being born with severe mental defects. In the time that they lived in my friend's house they also had another baby, that also had major mental issues. Obviously, these people being highly religious did not believe in birth control. (I've already had my fill of religious debates for the month so let's try table that particular issue and focus more on the government's role in this case.) It is my belief though it was those motivations that drove them to carry on having children, and not because they just wanted another government check (they weren't really what some people would call "white trash").

Do you think the government should be providing support in a case like this?

Personally, I think that there should be no section 8 or welfare at all, I think it incentiveises irresponsible behavior, but as that's probably not going to go away any time soon though. I think that you should be given a choice, that you can either not collect welfare and carry on having all the kids you want or you can collect benefits under the condition that you be put on birth control implants or the depo shot where there are no doses to miss and things like that and when you get off welfare you can carry on having babies again (although I disagree with the parent's choice to continue bringing babies into the world that they knew would have major problems, but I'm not advocating for abortion here, just birth control because they were on the dole, and they were forcing the tax payers to pay for their choice in this regard).

How do you think society should handle a case like this? I understand that mandating birth control in exchange for benefits would put an unequal pressure on the mother, but I just don't see how society can be fiscally responsible and allow things like this to happen.
The forum poster formerly known as Emoticon...
Reply
#2
Emoticon;86100 Wrote:Do you think the government should be providing support in a case like this?

No. For me the details really aren't important. I don't believe the government should be providing support in the way of housing/food/cash assistance in ANY case. That's simply NOT their job.
Reply
#3
gnbrotz;86109 Wrote:
Emoticon;86100 Wrote:Do you think the government should be providing support in a case like this?

No. For me the details really aren't important. I don't believe the government should be providing support in the way of housing/food/cash assistance in ANY case. That's simply NOT their job.
they should also do away with social security/disability as well.
"Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity"

goofin, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#4
i also believe it's not the federal governments job, it should be left to charity or the church.

I'm against all federal government hand outs, we lose so much money because of the bureaucracy. the money leaves the area only to come back half of what it was when it left.

That would be a tough call though, my suggestion is akin to closing the barn door after the horse is gone. and the .gov knows it, how to bring it back home or local is the problem. the .gov has the states by the short hairs, they'll just hold back money and the state politicians will come around.

that's exactly how we ended up with a emission sticker on our windshield.
With the Second Amendment saying what it says, Why isn't the Federal Government Suing NY
Reply
#5
goofin;86115 Wrote:
gnbrotz;86109 Wrote:No. For me the details really aren't important. I don't believe the government should be providing support in the way of housing/food/cash assistance in ANY case. That's simply NOT their job.
they should also do away with social security/disability as well.

Agreed.
Reply
#6
51158;86118 Wrote:i also believe it's not the federal governments job, it should be left to charity or the church.

This. In no way should these social programs exist as anything more than a temporary safety net. In this case, they knew without a doubt what the consequences of pregnancy would be so they should be 100% on the hook to take care of their kids. If they believed that god would provide for them, then they should seek help from their god (ie, at church).

It pisses me off because my wife and I waited until we were financially ready to have a child and then had only one because that's what we felt would fit our financial and familial support situations the best. How great would it be to just keep cranking out kids knowing that "someone else" would have to pay for their care and - in this case - even pay for live in help?

It's absolutely no different than having a kid to get the extra government money (welfare babies). No different at all.
Reply
#7
thebearpack;86124 Wrote:In no way should these social programs exist as anything more than a temporary safety net.

Why temporary? They shouldn't exist AT ALL.
Reply
#8
gnbrotz;86128 Wrote:Why temporary? They shouldn't exist AT ALL.

I agree but the fact is that every now and then people need a helping hand for a little while. In days past that helping hand would come from the community or church. Now however, communities are so big and spread out that we don't know our neighbors any more, people are overtaxed and stretched too thin to help others all the time, and churches aren't for everyone.

So until we get society sorted out (especially with regard to overtaxation), then I think a limited and temporary safety net is prudent. I know I'd feel a whole lot more charitable if i wasn't always being told how I need to pay more to the government, *

* I say as I finalize how much more I owe to the Feds and State in a month.
Reply
#9
I don't even feel like explaining what I just experienced this evening, but suffice it to say that I not only believe that there are people who should forfeit their ability to procreate, but there should be a death penalty for being a shitty parent.
Reply
#10
You (the adult) can only be on welfare for 5 years in PA..
http://www.ehow.com/list_7723411_states-...imits.html
Quote:States with 60-Month Limits
There are 32 states that have 60-month lifetime limits on transitional assistance benefits. Once the 60-month limit is reached, the state either closes the assistance case or removes the adult from the assistance program. Those states are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina and South Dakota. The District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico also follow the 60-month limit.



Read more: Which States Have Welfare Time Limits? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_7723411_states-...z2MoQLNT3A

SO having child after child doesn't really matter it isn't enough money to really live on.

Here's what you get.

http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/learnaboutdpw.../index.htm
Reply






Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Liberal Congresswoman Confesses She Has Not Reviewed Evidence in Ferguson Case Becaus das 0 366 12-24-2014, 07:02 PM
Last Post: das
  The Case For Obama’s Impeachment das 1 714 06-10-2014, 05:51 AM
Last Post: DeadEye
  Colorado Dems Approve of Welfare Recipients Using Their EBT Cards At Pot Shops… middlefinger 2 633 01-16-2014, 06:40 PM
Last Post: streaker69
  Congresswoman Urges Welfare Name Change nomad 11 1,564 01-11-2014, 11:13 AM
Last Post: bac0nfat
  Study: Welfare pays more than work in most states Jon Doe 9 1,133 08-22-2013, 12:20 PM
Last Post: Lkttomasz



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.