Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

1 Bump

Would You Support This Bill?

I've been really thinking of ways the government could save money lately with all this debt ceiling mumbo jumbo going on. I think a great way to save money on welfare and government assistance is to regulate it more. I would limit the number of kids that a woman could receive assistance for. I'm talking about maybe limit it to 3 and after that she would be responsible for caring for her other children! I would think this would help control the cost of assistance and women have 5-10 kids and never working a day in their life. I'm not trying to be harsh but somethings got to give! We could offer maybe free birth control or classes to future her education.. Just don't keep supporting babies so they could get more money!

 
mom2lilangels

Asked by mom2lilangels at 10:32 AM on Jul. 16, 2011 in Politics & Current Events

Level 17 (4,420 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (10)
  • I agree, three kids is enough. I also, see other places in the spending. In our town, we had all the traffice lights replaces like four years ago, they're re-doing them again! Why? and the signs, that says "John's Road" one on the old post and a new one, they haven't taken the od on down yet. WHY... couldn't they just take the sign off and put it on the new pole. It's the same sign.
    I have no clue how much these signs cost. BUT it is a waste of money. Our money...
    They can cut spending in so.. so.. many places...
    Oh, and my issue with the wefare mom's - FIND THE DEADBEAT fathers to help support these kids on they created! Spend a little more on enforcing the laws of child support and putting the kids on insurance.
    SassySue123

    Answer by SassySue123 at 10:40 AM on Jul. 16, 2011

  • I have always thought it should be based on "family" not on the # in the family..kind of like an insurance policy. I also think only certain foods can be bought like WIC has.
    yourspecialkid

    Answer by yourspecialkid at 10:46 AM on Jul. 16, 2011

  • The things mentioned are all low lying fruit. They need to phase out the Dept of Education with a 5 year plan, cut way back or eliminate the Dept of Energy, the EPA, Revamp Medicare, SS, Restructure the military, etc... They need to tackle and fix the big issues that suck our money.

    I agree with this, why is it those on government assistance are to blame for the governments money blunders???? The government is at fault not those who lost their jobs because of the government being stupid and wasting our tax dollars. Lets put the blame where it really belongs on those who make and laws and spend OUR money unwisely.. Quit picking on the poor because its easier to kick someone when there down and out then it is to see the truth.
    mrssundin

    Answer by mrssundin at 12:24 PM on Jul. 16, 2011

  • Case in point on the Government wasting OUR money, Geez I wonder how many SSI checks this would have covered..

    Two Navy Ships That Cost $300 Million Are Headed To The Scrapyard Without Having Seen A Day Of Service

    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/two-navy-ships-henry-eckford-benjamin-isherwood-scrapyard-2011-7?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+businessinsider+%28Business+Insider%29&utm_content=Google+Reader#ixzz1SHpVRlWj
    mrssundin

    Answer by mrssundin at 12:31 PM on Jul. 16, 2011

  • The things mentioned are all low lying fruit. They need to phase out the Dept of Education with a 5 year plan, cut way back or eliminate the Dept of Energy, the EPA, Revamp Medicare, SS, Restructure the military, etc... They need to tackle and fix the big issues that suck our money.
    Carpy

    Answer by Carpy at 11:10 AM on Jul. 16, 2011

  • I agree. I think three is more than enough. I understand a surprise happens sometimes but it happening repeatedly is a little difficult to buy. I also think that government officials could do with being paid less. There are so many places money could be saved but it would require a little sacrifice and the people in charge of the money aren't about to sacrifice anything.
    wildflowers25

    Answer by wildflowers25 at 10:57 AM on Jul. 16, 2011

  • I'd rather drug test anyone receiving govt assistance. If your drugs means more to you than feeding your kids or being a real adult it's time for a wake up call.
    zoejains_momma

    Answer by zoejains_momma at 10:39 AM on Jul. 16, 2011

  • Depends. Sometimes big families are doing financially fine, and then fall into hard times, that's not fair to disqualify them....but I get the idea for people already on the system not having more and more babies born into it.

    I don't think I would support it though, only because I fear the slippery slope potential of government having a say in our reproductive choices.
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 11:08 AM on Jul. 16, 2011

  • I agree that something needs to be done to the welfare system cause it is not working. BUT, I think drug testing is not the answer. Unless they are prepared to remove children from the home of every person who fails the drug test, then they are just hurting kids when they cut off the foodstamps for that person. It's not the kids fault that the parents made bad choices.
    sarebear31976

    Answer by sarebear31976 at 9:28 PM on Jul. 16, 2011

  • No. Based on the fact that your knowledge of "the system" is woefully lacking
    adnilm

    Answer by adnilm at 12:18 AM on Jul. 17, 2011

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN