California Considers Ending Rule That Penalizes Low-Income Women For Having Kids
Options
Comments
-
Taxpayers are excited to read about this.
-
A lot of women and ? ass men need to have eugenics performed on them. Such a disservice for the kids to grow up in that ? cause they parents are ? and have urges like animals.
-
Yea, just take away the penalty so these wenches can continue to get impregnated.
Hell, they know that's all they need. More kids means new home, new whip, much money and they don't have to do ? .
Meanwhile them little ? running around in the hood rampant.
I say keep that damn penalty in place -
desertrain10 wrote: »stilldat_dude wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »stilldat_dude wrote: »Why is society so hell bent on helping the sorry dumb ? who constantly make horrible life decisions...WHY!!!!! (I know why I'm just venting)
yall ? me
its not about absolving people of personal responsibility or rewarding risky behavior, it's about building a strong, vibrant economy/country by investing in every citizen, even the down trodden..
the better these women and other lower income people do, many of whom use public assistance as a ladder out of poverty, the stronger our economy grows...when the lower and middle classes spend their money locally and local businesses prosper and in turn poor neighborhoods will proper. it also costs less to police the nation as everyone has housing
but if it bothers you so bad go to a country absent of any social welfare programs. let me know how you like dodging bullets and stepping over dead bodies on the way to work
take for example, japan. japan has one of the toughest social welfare systems in the world. where people are dying by literally starving to death due by not having money to buy food.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/02/lonely-starvation-deaths-prompt-soul-searching-in-japan/
remember most of us are a medical emergency, disease, layoff, death away from poverty
Niggaplease...miss me with that titan graph of ? ...you sound like a weak ass ? and you can speak for yourself with that last ? sentence. Maybe if them ? weren't.....wait for it.....? ? they wouldn't be in that position in the first place...but I know that's too much like right....nah ? you weak ? ? me lol try again ? .
damn, don't tell me you mad... i'm just stating facts bruh... lol
smh
quite telling that you can't refute anything i said with anything other than insults and a profanity laden rant though
anyways don't respond to any of my posts, well at least until you can provide a substantive counter argument
? WHAT facts lmao??? the fact that you one dumb/weak ? lol...let me guess you were raised by a single mother cause ain't no way a ? who had a dad in his life would say some ? ? like the dumb ? you been saying this entire thread. I won't even get into the incorrect grammar you used and the illogical ass statements but you want me to take you seriously as an intelligent ? lmao...niggaplese when you display some knowledge beyond a GED ? I'll think about talking to you like a intelligent person ...try again ? you 0-2. I'm gone to bed u ? crazy lol...I hope you think of something intelligent to say by the morning. -
That penalty never stopped a damn thing anyways.
-
U can post all the articles and stats you want bout Blacks having less access to BC, that still dont change the dirt cheap cost of condoms. These reckless welfare warrior queens are out here ? raw. Not giving two ? if the ? busts in her.
-
desertrain10 wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »Tommy bilfiger wrote: »I fully expect pregnancies in the mexican and blacc communities to go up 280%.I know a chick with 6 kids and lives off welfare (link card and cash).If you don't deter these ? they will milk the system and perpetuate the cycle of nothingness
according to the articles California has been penalizing these mothers since 94 and it hasnt impacted the birth rate...low income women are still having kids
Shouldn't really be about that either.
With an ever shrinking tax/income base, there just isn't enough money to do all of this.
It sounds cruel, but if low income women continue to have kids, they should be solely responsible for paying for them......just don't expect the taxpayers to pay for it.
If they can't afford the kids, take the kids away.
Huh lol
So traumatize the children by taking them away from their families and make them wards of the state
Would rather we address the source of the problem which is poverty, substance abuse and lack of jobs, then further burden the state, make the children suffer
None of that has anything to do with women continuing to have children they can't afford.
All the more reason to not have children.
Are you saying that women living in poverty don't have any self-control and are incapable of making responsible decisions?
Careful, because if you say that these women do have self-control and are capable of making responsible decisions.....then you're also saying that they believe having children they can't afford is responsible.
Which also implies that they have a warped concept of self-control as well.
multiple studies as well as my personal experiences has informed me women, people have babies because they are looking for purpose and/or love....low income people aren't devoid of these emotions, thoughts. however, the problem is they usually come from broken families/ impoverished /violent areas
the careers, loving relationships and educational opportunities that occupy middle and upper class women’s twenties and thirties are just dreams to these women. and children can act as a stabilizer in a neighborhood, family or financial situation that is otherwise chaos
You seriously can't believe that.
None of that even makes sense.
Almost sounds like you're reading verbatim from a script or something.
You actually believe that if these women are having kids "looking for purpose and love" that it absolves them of being held accountable for making irresponsible decisions?
And that all of these children born into these conditions are "acting as stabilizers in their neighborhoods?"
-
Some of you women don't think enough
The ? you keep having kids for if you're in poverty???
Because you know someone else will take the responsibility
And you know taxpayers will have to foot the bill
? outta here with that ? ... -
why are there so many feelings in here
Like
How -
desertrain10 wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »Tommy bilfiger wrote: »I fully expect pregnancies in the mexican and blacc communities to go up 280%.I know a chick with 6 kids and lives off welfare (link card and cash).If you don't deter these ? they will milk the system and perpetuate the cycle of nothingness
according to the articles California has been penalizing these mothers since 94 and it hasnt impacted the birth rate...low income women are still having kids
Shouldn't really be about that either.
With an ever shrinking tax/income base, there just isn't enough money to do all of this.
It sounds cruel, but if low income women continue to have kids, they should be solely responsible for paying for them......just don't expect the taxpayers to pay for it.
If they can't afford the kids, take the kids away.
Huh lol
So traumatize the children by taking them away from their families and make them wards of the state
Would rather we address the source of the problem which is poverty, substance abuse and lack of jobs, then further burden the state, make the children suffer
None of that has anything to do with women continuing to have children they can't afford.
All the more reason to not have children.
Are you saying that women living in poverty don't have any self-control and are incapable of making responsible decisions?
Careful, because if you say that these women do have self-control and are capable of making responsible decisions.....then you're also saying that they believe having children they can't afford is responsible.
Which also implies that they have a warped concept of self-control as well.
multiple studies as well as my personal experiences has informed me women, people have babies because they are looking for purpose and/or love....low income people aren't devoid of these emotions, thoughts. however, the problem is they usually come from broken families/ impoverished /violent areas
the careers, loving relationships and educational opportunities that occupy middle and upper class women’s twenties and thirties are just dreams to these women. and children can act as a stabilizer in a neighborhood, family or financial situation that is otherwise chaos
You seriously can't believe that.
None of that even makes sense.
Almost sounds like you're reading verbatim from a script or something.
You actually believe that if these women are having kids "looking for purpose and love" that it absolves them of being held accountable for making irresponsible decisions?
And that all of these children born into these conditions are "acting as stabilizers in their neighborhoods?"
And bruh...
That's whats out here getting pregnant...that ? ...
Lord have mercy
-
WHy can't these chicks get their tubes tied? Don't give me that religious BS about "? did this and he wants me to do this" and blah blah.
-
On one hand women don't want the government telling them what to do with their bodies
On the other hand they want the government to pay for what they did to their own bodies
Am I missing something here?
what i'm saying is its time to truly invest in these women, lower income people.... instead of just handing them money or either cutting them off completely. we've tried both strategies and they don't work
what i would propose is policies that provide pregnant people with an adequate amount of maternity/paternity leave without worrying about losing their jobs, state funded day care, free health care, even more funding for job training programs, investing in our infrastructure can provide jobs, ...
the money is there if we can afford all these wars and let so many corporations call america home yet pay so little in taxes
not to mention investing in our communities will strengthen the economy in the long run
-
Yes. Mother is broke, unemployed, in poverty. Yet decides to pop out another baby she cant afford! She obviously doesnt care, so why the ? should I?? _i_look_like wrote: »? _i_look_like wrote: »The ? mother doesnt care that her child will suffer in poverty due to her carelessness, so I find it hard to give a ? about the kid suffering. ? brought it on herself
So poverty is something women bring upon themselves?
Inefficient government social policies and unemployment have nothing to do with it?
getting pregnant is what she brought upon herself...smart one
Even if she "brought it upon herself", her and her kid deserve to live in poverty?
-
On one hand women don't want the government telling them what to do with their bodies
On the other hand they want the government to pay for what they did to their own bodies
Am I missing something here?
-
Feelings have nothing to do with this
Men are just tired of these ? broads ? . Simple as that.
The stupidity that comes out of their mouths is horrendous.
Read some of their posts, this ? is crazy.
Men are held accountable in so many ways when it comes to children
Yet that same accountability is not even considered with these broads
Oh, let the state take care of em. But if that child grows up to be a statistic?
"Gurrrl, his daddy? That ? ain't ? ! That's why he ? up now and in jail, with his broke ass"
It's a cycle that must be stopped.
-
Can somebody please explain why low income women keep having babies?
That's just poor decision making. If you barely taking care of yourself and you choose to get pregnant, YOU the ? that's "making the child suffer". It's the fault of the two dummies that decided not to use protection.
I'm sick of this ? . People got a million and one excuses for why dumb ? get pregnant and ? the blame from them but quick to say ? need to keep it in their pants.
The same one making excuses for these dumb broads poppin out kid after kid that they can't take care, but get their panties in a bunch when they see a dumb ? with 14 kids and 12 BM's
How do you address poverty when people keep contributing to it by having more babies they can't afford who will likely grow up to have babies they can't afford either?
First of all, birth control is extremely expensive for low income women. Blame an inefficient health care system in the United States. With Obamacare, hopefully, younger women will able to have greater access to birth control. Also, poor people are no less likely to use condoms than other people, but because they don't have the money for the best birth control, it's not 100% effective.
Second of all, telling poor women to stop having children is not the answer to solving poverty. Instead of attacking conservative economic policies, the sequester budget cuts, or the erosion of social welfare, men attack women for being "irresponsible" with their bodies.
These are the same excuse people use over and over and over.
*sigh*
How much is a pack of condoms? Last I checked, medicaid covers bc. There's a wide range of options. Excuse denied
#2
So the next time a thread gets posted about a ? ? with more kids than common sense and means, I expect you to throw that cape on with this same excuse. I don't wanna here no ? bashin from you.
Read this article about how expensive birth control is. And condoms aren't 100% effective.
"The high cost of birth control has prompted 25% of women who make less than $75,000 per year to put off going to the doctor. About 29% of women in the same income range have used their birth control method incorrectly in an attempt to try to make it last longer. And half of women haven't used their method as directed because it's cost-prohibitive."
http://jezebel.com/5885368/actually-birth-controls-pretty-expensive
C'mon you quoting stats from a feminist site? Yeah there's no bias and twisting of stats and figures there.
Again, you still making excuses. Let's look at the real world. Funny how some of these chicks have money to spend on weave, cell phones, shoes, clubbin etc but can't afford birth control
"b-b-but that's only SOME women". Yeah some way too ? many.
According to yall logic, we should pay ? back child support right? I mean after all, the kids are suffering and lecturing people and trying to hold them accountable does nothing right? Yall want ? locked up for not payin but never think that doesn't help the child huh?
So when ? don't pay child support, moms gotta rely on welfare. That obviously ain't enough because poverty still so damn high. Oh and in no way is a lotta that due to the fact a lotta women bein irresponsible right? So what we need to do, is cut that child support check on behave of ? ain't ? daddy so the kids can eat. Cuz we need to be humane and not let the children suffer.
You have stats to refute the information from the site or nah?
You don't believe that birth control is expensive?
Here's another article stating that Black women have lower access to birth control services in the context of abortion.
"Our high abortion rate reflects our high rate of unintended pregnancy -- which in turn reflects poverty and a lack of accessible, affordable health care. Nearly half of all U.S. pregnancies are unintended -- a far higher proportion than you would find in most other developed countries -- and the risk isn't distributed equally. African-American women experience unintended pregnancy at more than twice the rate of white women, often because they black affordable birth control."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/veronica-byrd/african-americans-abortion-rights_b_920288.html
So Planned Parenthood doesn't exist? How long that ? been around offering free birth control but yet here we are with all these kids running around that people can't afford. So what went wrong there?
So women can afford abortions but can't afford birth control? Got that new Galaxy S4, but can't cop those pills or that patch or that IUD, or that shot, or that ? ring, or that female condom, or that box of trojans and keeping your legs closed until you can afford it it totally out of the question.
? ? need to keep it in their pants but ? ? should be free to let that ? pop huh?
I don't get yall
Yall wanna talk girl power, but then play poor little helpless girl that has to have everything provided for her and she shouldn't be held to and sort of responsibility. -
I swear that a lot of this problem is because of "tradition" dysfunction and religious BS when its convenient to them.
-
desertrain10 wrote: »On one hand women don't want the government telling them what to do with their bodies
On the other hand they want the government to pay for what they did to their own bodies
Am I missing something here?
what i'm saying is its time to truly invest in these women, lower income people.... instead of just handing them money or either cutting them off completely. we've tried both strategies and they don't work
We should invest in women who have multiple children out-of-wedlock who are so poor that they can't even afford to take care of them without government assistance?
@Sion, what kind of return should someone expect on an investment of that nature?
lolololololololololololololol
-
stilldat_dude wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »stilldat_dude wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »stilldat_dude wrote: »Why is society so hell bent on helping the sorry dumb ? who constantly make horrible life decisions...WHY!!!!! (I know why I'm just venting)
yall ? me
its not about absolving people of personal responsibility or rewarding risky behavior, it's about building a strong, vibrant economy/country by investing in every citizen, even the down trodden..
the better these women and other lower income people do, many of whom use public assistance as a ladder out of poverty, the stronger our economy grows...when the lower and middle classes spend their money locally and local businesses prosper and in turn poor neighborhoods will proper. it also costs less to police the nation as everyone has housing
but if it bothers you so bad go to a country absent of any social welfare programs. let me know how you like dodging bullets and stepping over dead bodies on the way to work
take for example, japan. japan has one of the toughest social welfare systems in the world. where people are dying by literally starving to death due by not having money to buy food.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/02/lonely-starvation-deaths-prompt-soul-searching-in-japan/
remember most of us are a medical emergency, disease, layoff, death away from poverty
Niggaplease...miss me with that titan graph of ? ...you sound like a weak ass ? and you can speak for yourself with that last ? sentence. Maybe if them ? weren't.....wait for it.....? ? they wouldn't be in that position in the first place...but I know that's too much like right....nah ? you weak ? ? me lol try again ? .
damn, don't tell me you mad... i'm just stating facts bruh... lol
smh
quite telling that you can't refute anything i said with anything other than insults and a profanity laden rant though
anyways don't respond to any of my posts, well at least until you can provide a substantive counter argument
? WHAT facts lmao??? the fact that you one dumb/weak ? lol...let me guess you were raised by a single mother cause ain't no way a ? who had a dad in his life would say some ? ? like the dumb ? you been saying this entire thread. I won't even get into the incorrect grammar you used and the illogical ass statements but you want me to take you seriously as an intelligent ? lmao...niggaplese when you display some knowledge beyond a GED ? I'll think about talking to you like a intelligent person ...try again ? you 0-2. I'm gone to bed u ? crazy lol...I hope you think of something intelligent to say by the morning.
lol
yea u mad
and no i was raised in a two parent household until i was about 15, after that i stayed with my father during the summers...grandparents were always in my life, if that means anything...had 4 older brothers
really don't see how that's relevant ...
but yea just ignore my posts from now on... better yet this thread ... don't want you tainting it with your ignorance
-
I say make birth control free
Then, cut benefits additional pregnancies.
What excuse you gon use then? BC is free, so why the hell would women STILL have babies they can't afford?
Choose your words carefully, cuz you'll say bc isn't 100% effective (nevermind the fact you can combine pills with condom use for a helluva two piece against pregnancy), and that will bring us right the back to why are you rolling the dice on having kids you can't afford when you already have some you can't afford?
-
desertrain10 wrote: »On one hand women don't want the government telling them what to do with their bodies
On the other hand they want the government to pay for what they did to their own bodies
Am I missing something here?
what i'm saying is its time to truly invest in these women, lower income people.... instead of just handing them money or either cutting them off completely. we've tried both strategies and they don't work
what i would propose is policies that provide pregnant people with an adequate amount of maternity/paternity leave without worrying about losing their jobs, state funded day care, free health care, even more funding for job training programs, investing in our infrastructure can provide jobs, ...
the money is there if we can afford all these wars and let so many corporations call america home yet pay so little in taxes
not to mention investing in our communities will strengthen the economy in the long run
Bruh, these women gotta start investing in themselves first instead of us makin it rain with social programs.
There's already a ton of resources for single mothers that pay for school/training/child care etc. We ain't investing already? Check this out below, a very informative post from another thread:hey Naomi,
You had stated that you are currently in school. Are you in a state school or community/junior college? If so, these schools also help pay for daycare, depending on what state you live in (in california, the state help pays for daycare).
Who do you work for? You job can also take money out of your check tax-free and place it on a pre-paid credit card for you to pay for childcare for both of your children.
Also, if you make below, 30k, you need to see if you can apply for GAIN ( GAIN is for mothers with children who are trying to establish getting back on their feet). GAIN pays for YOUR schooling, DAYCARE, and any other necessities that you need to finish school and get into the work force.
What are you going to school for?
You stated that you need a day job, do you have an update resume? Maybe your resume is holding you back and someone on can help you fix it, so you can get that daytime job.
Are you full-time at work or have you been at your job over a year? Maybe you can go on FMLA ( Family Medical Leave/Absence) to fix your personal needs at home and go under stress leave from work to fix everything that you need. You will still be paid while you are out of work but only 75% of what you make. However, you need to sign up for AFLAC under your job, ask you HR rep if they provide information on gaining AFLAC.
AFLAC pays any and all bills (including rent) to assist you while you are on FMLA. This will definitely help you with more free time and get everything you need together and have him leave or you can leave with a better location.
Also, if you are interested in getting him to leave your house, mail and certify a copy of a written 30 day leave notice to him with his legal/illegal name on the letter. If he decides to not leave after your 30 day notice, you do have the right to ask the sheriff to extract him out of your home.
-
stilldat_dude wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »stilldat_dude wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »stilldat_dude wrote: »Why is society so hell bent on helping the sorry dumb ? who constantly make horrible life decisions...WHY!!!!! (I know why I'm just venting)
yall ? me
its not about absolving people of personal responsibility or rewarding risky behavior, it's about building a strong, vibrant economy/country by investing in every citizen, even the down trodden..
the better these women and other lower income people do, many of whom use public assistance as a ladder out of poverty, the stronger our economy grows...when the lower and middle classes spend their money locally and local businesses prosper and in turn poor neighborhoods will proper. it also costs less to police the nation as everyone has housing
but if it bothers you so bad go to a country absent of any social welfare programs. let me know how you like dodging bullets and stepping over dead bodies on the way to work
take for example, japan. japan has one of the toughest social welfare systems in the world. where people are dying by literally starving to death due by not having money to buy food.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/02/lonely-starvation-deaths-prompt-soul-searching-in-japan/
remember most of us are a medical emergency, disease, layoff, death away from poverty
Niggaplease...miss me with that titan graph of ? ...you sound like a weak ass ? and you can speak for yourself with that last ? sentence. Maybe if them ? weren't.....wait for it.....? ? they wouldn't be in that position in the first place...but I know that's too much like right....nah ? you weak ? ? me lol try again ? .
damn, don't tell me you mad... i'm just stating facts bruh... lol
smh
quite telling that you can't refute anything i said with anything other than insults and a profanity laden rant though
anyways don't respond to any of my posts, well at least until you can provide a substantive counter argument
? WHAT facts lmao??? the fact that you one dumb/weak ? lol...let me guess you were raised by a single mother cause ain't no way a ? who had a dad in his life would say some ? ? like the dumb ? you been saying this entire thread. I won't even get into the incorrect grammar you used and the illogical ass statements but you want me to take you seriously as an intelligent ? lmao...niggaplese when you display some knowledge beyond a GED ? I'll think about talking to you like a intelligent person ...try again ? you 0-2. I'm gone to bed u ? crazy lol...I hope you think of something intelligent to say by the morning.
@stilldat_dude
@desertrain10 is a female.
Not using that as an excuse to explain her illogical views or anything.
Just saying.....that should give you a better understanding of her "logic."
Yo.....did you ever catch up with Fundz? -
Single mothers are what keep this country going. Single mothers do so much good in society. They raise children. What is more noble and beneficial to society than produce more humans beings? If it wasn't for them there wouldn't be so many people.
We need to cut single mothers slack. They do so much good in this world. Major contributors to our country. -
desertrain10 wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »Tommy bilfiger wrote: »I fully expect pregnancies in the mexican and blacc communities to go up 280%.I know a chick with 6 kids and lives off welfare (link card and cash).If you don't deter these ? they will milk the system and perpetuate the cycle of nothingness
according to the articles California has been penalizing these mothers since 94 and it hasnt impacted the birth rate...low income women are still having kids
Shouldn't really be about that either.
With an ever shrinking tax/income base, there just isn't enough money to do all of this.
It sounds cruel, but if low income women continue to have kids, they should be solely responsible for paying for them......just don't expect the taxpayers to pay for it.
If they can't afford the kids, take the kids away.
Huh lol
So traumatize the children by taking them away from their families and make them wards of the state
Would rather we address the source of the problem which is poverty, substance abuse and lack of jobs, then further burden the state, make the children suffer
None of that has anything to do with women continuing to have children they can't afford.
All the more reason to not have children.
Are you saying that women living in poverty don't have any self-control and are incapable of making responsible decisions?
Careful, because if you say that these women do have self-control and are capable of making responsible decisions.....then you're also saying that they believe having children they can't afford is responsible.
Which also implies that they have a warped concept of self-control as well.
multiple studies as well as my personal experiences has informed me women, people have babies because they are looking for purpose and/or love....low income people aren't devoid of these emotions, thoughts. however, the problem is they usually come from broken families/ impoverished /violent areas
the careers, loving relationships and educational opportunities that occupy middle and upper class women’s twenties and thirties are just dreams to these women. and children can act as a stabilizer in a neighborhood, family or financial situation that is otherwise chaos
You seriously can't believe that.
None of that even makes sense.
Almost sounds like you're reading verbatim from a script or something.
You actually believe that if these women are having kids "looking for purpose and love" that it absolves them of being held accountable for making irresponsible decisions?
And that all of these children born into these conditions are "acting as stabilizers in their neighborhoods?"
lol...
women have children for many of reasons...many of whom i mentioned throughout this thread
purpose and love being the main culprits
for women of lesser means the desire for a loving and stable relationship is even stronger considering they live an otherwise chaotic, direct-less existence ....which leads to many having children, following after pimps, etc
smh....nobody is popping out babies for foodstamps, now that's a ridiculous notion
anyways providing women, lower income people with opportunities and a reason not to get pregnant that simultaneously improves their quality of life is the direction to go in imho
-
On one hand women don't want the government telling them what to do with their bodies
On the other hand they want the government to pay for what they did to their own bodies
Am I missing something here?
Yep.
The two things have nothing to do with each other.
And I don't know why you all keep harping on the government "paying" for it when it ain't that much money.
As I said, welfare comprises only .0000016 of the federal budget, and y'all are talking as if this is almost one billion dollars that is being spent on welfare and birth control services.
You can't be serious right there.
As for your .0000016 number, where you get that from?
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1258
"Safety net programs: About 12 percent of the federal budget in 2012, or $411 billion, supported programs that provide aid (other than health insurance or Social Security benefits) to individuals and families facing hardship. Spending on safety net programs declined in both nominal and real terms between 2011 and 2012 as the economy continued to improve."
