Its clearly the right time to slash the social safety net

[Kidlicious]

Do you have any form of child support payments over there seperate to things like unemployment?

No. In Oklahoma they throw you in jail. Real talk.

[Dinner]

Yeah! The kids will definitely get their money once they lock up every guy who can't keep up with the payments! Especially since they frequently like to make the child support amount owed higher than the guy's monthly income or if he does make a lot then they'll sometimes make it something like 80% of income. That's just absurd. Yet it happens. I knew a guy in the Army Reserve who only made $2000 a month but the court ordered him to pay $1600 a month ($800 for each kid) for the twins he had with his ex-wife. Worse she got spousal support of $600 per month so he literally owed $2200 a month even though he only made $2000 per month. That's just retarded.

What was he supposed to live on? There should be a law that no support payments may exceed 40% of income so the guy can still live and keep making the payments. When the femi-nazis claim claim "the kids shouldn't get short changed" well I guess she should have ****ed a guy who made more money.

[Tupac Shakur]

You're really a terrible human being, Oerdin.

[Dinner]

Why because I think charging someone a monthly support payment larger than what they make is stupid? I mean how does the guy survive, pay rent, buy food? Is the goal to make him quit his job and sign up for welfare because that's what they ended up doing to that guy.

[Dinner]

I originally posted this in the plural marriage thread but it more correctly belongs in this one since it's about the social safety net. I generally support short term help for people who need it but the current system is becoming just too generous. A woman with three kids can get $630 per month in food stamps, $800-$1200 a month in housing assistance (Section 8 housing voucher), $500 per month in cash aid, a free cell phone with 250 minutes per month, 2/3rds off utility bills, discounted internet access, free to extremely cheap medical care (Medicaid or MediCAL), free school lunches for the kids (including breakfast), WIC, and who knows what else. That's easily over $2000 per month and most of that never expires (though the cash aid only lasts for 2-5 years). Worse most of them have a boyfriend on the side who gives them money or helps them out so really they don't need so much.

I'm not saying welfare is a great lifestyle but it should just be enough to help out for a very short period of time instead of $20,000-$30,000 per year for decades. Give them enough to make sure no one dies of starvation and anything more then s/he needs to get a job. It's just absurd.

[kentonio]

How is a woman with three small kids supposed to hold a job? As for money, do you have any idea how insanely expensive it is to raise 3 children? They grow out of their clothes constantly, and inflict heavy wear and tear on the ones they have, they need lots of food, nappies, formula, etc etc etc etc. Seriously the list of requirements is never ending.

Also you ****ed your own argument with that anecdotal line about boyfriends. You don't run a system on the principle that some unknown, unnamed benefactor MAY randomly be giving the person money.

[Tupac Shakur]

****** fight!

[giblets]

How is a woman with three small kids supposed to hold a job? As for money, do you have any idea how insanely expensive it is to raise 3 children? They grow out of their clothes constantly, and inflict heavy wear and tear on the ones they have, they need lots of food, nappies, formula, etc etc etc etc. Seriously the list of requirements is never ending.

Also you ****ed your own argument with that anecdotal line about boyfriends. You don't run a system on the principle that some unknown, unnamed benefactor MAY randomly be giving the person money.

I guess she should have thought about that before she didn't have three abortions.

[Mojotronica]

Why because I think charging someone a monthly support payment larger than what they make is stupid? I mean how does the guy survive, pay rent, buy food? Is the goal to make him quit his job and sign up for welfare because that's what they ended up doing to that guy.

My Dad and many friend's Dad's purposely took on only low-paying jobs to avoid paying child support, until the kids were all 18.

[Dinner]

Can you at least admit it's unreasonable to demand so much the guy doesn't even have enough money to keep a roof over his head and buy food? I mean, how is he supposed to stay employed so he can keep providing for the kids? My old co-worker ended up having to move back in with his parents because he literally didn't have money for rent or food. This just isn't in the best interests of the kids or the parent.

I don't know how common his experience is as it's anecdotal but it's one which has stuck in my mind because it was so bat**** insane. Putting a cap on how much money they can take in support as a percentage of income seems reasonable and prevents abuse.

[Dinner]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]170830[/ATTACH]

My problem with these sorts of graphs is they take current trends and then project them out 70 years pretending nothing ever changes.

[kentonio]

Latest pearl of wisdom from Romney: "Cutting welfare spending dramatically, I don't think will hurt the poor,"

It beggars belief, it really does..

[rah]

That's besides the point. The fact that you choose to ignore is that there aren't jobs for everyone on welfare. In fact welfare reform proves this.

Actually the fact that many of those on welfare "finally" found a job after they were weened off welfare proved otherwise. Quite a few people preferred welfare over actually working when the economics of it were similar.

[kentonio]

What rate of 'people starving in the streets' are you willing to tolerate though for each person who 'discovers the value of hard work'? Slashing welfare is going to deliver both, so what ratio is acceptable?

[rah]

Tough question. The answer will differ considerably depending on whether you believe it's Government's responsibility to make sure no one starves.
Modifying welfare rules doesn't always mean slashing welfare. The rules changes that happened during the period in question didn't seem to create much extra starving in the streets. It did deliver great gains in getting people less reliant on the system and has been generally proclaimed as a success. But I don't have the hard evidence at hand to prove that and would have to go back and look at some numbers to verify that. But it doesn't change my thinking on whether it's the governments role to provide universal support.