Indemnity Dental Insurance - Why don't we take welfare away from everyone except people having their first kid?

Why don't we take welfare away from everyone except people having their first kid?

I mean give them welfare for six months just so they 100% sure are ready, and then stop the free money. People who are working on their second kid should be responsible enough to have had a job long enough to afford health insurance through their work place. Most full time jobs offer health and dental after six- nine months, raises and reasonable pay. If you're making minimum wage, you need to find another job. It's that simple. Minimum wage jobs are for students! That's one of the main reasons they raised it. The welfare system is abused and we have all these Americans blaming the rich for not paying for it. What is that? Then what makes it worse is it is angering a bunch of people to the point that those who actually do need welfare are being called bums. If I worked my summer job year around I would make 21,000 dollars, and I am able to rent a house, have the internet, LAN line telephone, cell phone, eat out at least twice a week, spend 40 bucks on a shirt, and so on. ANd with the exception of Britney Spears anyone who has a new born kid is going to have to sacrifice some luxeries if you're an actual responsible parent.... No matter how much money you have. Time, money, whatever... Responsible parents sacrifice. Some abuse the system? Some?! Are you angry white cause I am tired of working for the summer and shoveling out money I can spend on college to people who abandon their kids? WHo won't find a reasonable job? Don't get angry at me. I agree that if you can't afford a child and accidently get pregnant then get an abortion if you wish. This is another thing that angers me. These repubs get angry about abortion and call those who choose to use the right bad people, but then call them bad people when they turn to welfare to afford the kid. I have a life... What are you gtting so angry about? Cause I paid 26,000 dollars this year to go to college out of my pocket, or I work to pay for books, food and internet? The things I need. Come on man... That is my life right there. I just paid every last bit of money I had to a credit card company because I had to pay for a bunch of journals to finish a final. Don't tell me to get a life, cause in reality, I don't have time for one anyway. My entertainment sadly enough is Yahoo Answers between my classes during the day, or study breaks during the night. Maybe these welfare bums need to start their life, and I think you're one of them. All I hear is excuses in this question. Sadly enough no one answered it. Insulting people is not an answer to the question... That is just childish since this is supposed to be fun...

Public Comments

Because we provide a safety net for those who fail or who are unlucky. That some abuse the system does not justify the punishment of those who are genuinely needy.
Just wondering: are you pro-life or pro-choice? I ask, because if abortion is "banned", and thus we are forcing women who cannot take care of babies to give birth, who is going to be sure those babies are fed, housed, and clothed? Or, is it just "welcome to the world, kid, now you're on your own".
What about the people that have good jobs, a house and all the luxuries they want, then have a child. Things are going well and they find they have another child on the way and they lose their job to downsizing. They live on their savings and then one of them gets into a car wreck and is unable to work for a year. Without government assistance they could never get back on their feet. With it they can. Yes many people abuse the system, but there are many people that truely want to get back on their feet and need help.
A little idealistic considering there are many mitigating factors. You have places like Michigan, where by even if you honestly wanted a job, there are none to be had. it is all fine and well to say move, however when you are living off federal subsidies which don't even bring you close to the poverty line relocation is not an option. There is also the instance that child care is not readily available or even affordable for many families, so working full time may not be an option for a new mother, who doesn't have the luxury or a spouse or former partner that offer financial support. Which is unfortunately not uncommon. Most full time jobs to not offer dental, heath care, insurance and other benefits. There is a growing trend of hiring full time employees on as "consultants" or" private contractor" to avoid such obligations. The social safety nets are often abused, however they are unfortunately needed, until we can obtain an unemployment rate close to zero, have affordable child care, or a high enough wage standard more conducive to single income families then a social safety net will be required.
i agree it is being abused. funny i had this conversation with my hubby earlier. it gets my goat that most people are abusing it. i know someone who collects and calls it white trash money. the husband works under the table at 25.00 bucks an hour and she goes to school p/t. they are 40 and 37. have 5 kids between them. they buy louis vuitton and coach get housing paid by the state get food stamps medical etc. my husband works 60 hours a week gets paid very well and we still can't buy louis vuitton. but we do live nicely. there was a time many years ago we struggled but never depended on aid. and if we were to have ever gotten to that point we probably still wouldn't qualify. my answer to it is provide those in need for a short period of time. state should send the landlord the rent check and food vouchers to be used only for food and give no cash to them at all. vouchers for utilities etc. cut off the free spending and perhaps they will learn to work like the rest of the world. these same people i refered to got 6000.00 back in taxes and only paid 500.00 total for the year in taxes. i know i did their taxes for them. never again! i don't even speak to them now they are the true meaning of white trash.
why don't you all relax about thinking about how much of "your tax dollars are paying for lazy people who just want to live off the system" you are so wrong and are not even eduated enough to know where your money is really going. Who ever told you that welfare is a piece of cake? welfare is help, but not even enough to survive on anyway. The two largest welfare programs for the poor, AFDC and food stamps, each take up only 1 percent of the combined government budgets. Attempts to expand the definition of "welfare" to make this figure larger will inevitably include popular middle class programs like Medicaid and student loans. Argument One of the most popular myths is that welfare is a serious drag on the economy. Actually, it barely registers on the radar screen. The most vilified form of welfare is Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), which allegedly gives poor mothers a financial incentive to avoid work and have babies. Yet in 1992, AFDC formed only 1 percent of the combined federal and state budgets. Food stamps also took up 1 percent. Both programs cost $24.9 billion each, comprising 1 percent each of the combined federal, state and local budget of $2,487 billion. (1) Comparing the size of federal AFDC to other federal programs puts a great deal in perspective: Federal AFDC Expenditures as Compared to Federal Spending in Other Areas (1993) (2) Agency AFDC 12 Medicaid 76 Medicare 131 Defense 281 Social Security 305 To rescue their point that welfare is responsible for runaway government spending, conservatives must expand the definition of "welfare" as much as possible. Unfortunately, AFDC and food stamps are by far the largest welfare for the poor, and any expanded definition is going to include popular middle class programs like Medicaid, student grants, school lunches, and pensions for needy veterans. In other words, conservatives must villainize the middle class if they wish to villainize the poor. But for the moment, let's give them the benefit of the doubt, and accompany their line of argument to the end: Many conservatives expand "welfare" to include all one-way transfers of cash, goods or services to persons who make no payment and render no service in return. The Library of Congress provides a list of such programs (which will be included in the appendix below). In 1992, these expenditures for combined federal, state and local governments came to $289.9 billion, or 12 percent of the combined budget of $2,487 billion. (3) Keep in mind that this 12 percent includes such popular middle class programs as Medicaid, student grants, school lunches, pensions for needy veterans, etc. If conservatives are still frustrated that this does not prove their point that government is drowning in welfare, then they might try expanding "welfare" to include all social welfare expenditures, which include every entitlement program under the sun, including Social Security and Medicare. (Forget, for the moment, that the middle class is defending these programs with bazookas and rocket launchers.) In 1992, these expenditures comprised 62 percent of combined government outlays. However, at least at the federal level, these benefits are paid to literally every income bracket the conservative's absurdism is now complete; he has declared class war against every member of society. But at least he has proven his point. courtesy of http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-runawaywelfare.htm