Why should the parent of a 7 year old not prove it?

 

If that parent won't properly support a child why should they be allowed to keep it?

 

 

If you punish the parent financially you are going to punish the child.

 

What kind of test are you going to put on the parent in order to have the govt determine if the child should be removed?

No the parent is punishing the kid by the very act of having them.

 

If you can't support your kids financially through private means (including other family and church) you shouldn't have them. It's quite simple as far as I figure.

Call on family members, church members and people in the community to raise and take care of those children; not the govt. I too agree that we have a responsibility to do the right thing; I just don't think it requires govt involvement, which is where you and I disagree.

 

 

Here in Louisville, and I believe it may be state wide, there's a program called Wednesday's Child. These are children who have been removed from their homes, placed in foster care, where some have languished in the system for years. Many of these children are in their mid to late teens. No one has adopted them to date. Who do you think will step up in the community in the future, when no one is stepping up now, and the need is here NOW?

I don't think there's any doubt the taxpayers have to take care of the kids whose parents cannot or will not. There are way too many for individuals, churches or nonprofits to handle. Many are out there through no fault of the families but as All Tell mentioned, far too often it is the result of poor choices by the parents.

I don't think there's any doubt the taxpayers have to take care of the kids whose parents cannot or will not. There are way too many for individuals, churches or nonprofits to handle. Many are out there through no fault of the families but as All Tell mentioned, far too often it is the result of poor choices by the parents.

 

I understand that. But, the catch-22 to eliminating some marginal parents from the rolls, and thereby forcing their kids either into homelessness or foster care. Many don't even make it into foster care with families because there aren't families either willing or qualified to care for many of them. I'm not disputing something has to be done, but for the love of God, let's think about the "unintended" consequences before we decide there's a cut & dry answer.

I understand that. But, the catch-22 to eliminating some marginal parents from the rolls, and thereby forcing their kids either into homelessness or foster care. Many don't even make it into foster care with families because there aren't families either willing or qualified to care for many of them. I'm not disputing something has to be done, but for the love of God, let's think about the "unintended" consequences before we decide there's a cut & dry answer.

 

There is no cut & dry answer in these situations. I do think you cut loose the parents before you cut loose the kids. Resources are limited and I would much rather have my tax dollars go towards caring for as many kids as possible rather than some of the kids and some of the parents. Do some people get cut loose when they really need the help? Sure, but until there are unlimited resources to care for every needy case, the kids should take priority.

No the parent is punishing the kid by the very act of having them.

 

If you can't support your kids financially through private means (including other family and church) you shouldn't have them. It's quite simple as far as I figure.

 

So we're going to punish the kid because he/she was unfortunate enough to come into the world through the wrong birth canal?

 

You still haven't answered what we do with the 7 yr old who has bad parents, no family willing to take him/her in, and no other means of support.

There is no cut & dry answer in these situations. I do think you cut loose the parents before you cut loose the kids. Resources are limited and I would much rather have my tax dollars go towards caring for as many kids as possible rather than some of the kids and some of the parents. Do some people get cut loose when they really need the help? Sure, but until there are unlimited resources to care for every needy case, the kids should take priority.

 

You're absoultely right, there are no cut and dry answers. Yet, cut and dry answers are what are being proposed in this thread. Maybe it's a perspective. It's easy to be dispassionate about the fate of faceless children, until you've had children. Then every faceless child is your child's face when you think of their fate. Emotional response? You betcha. Do I feel guilty for feeling that way? No way. The issue is very close to my heart.

So we're going to punish the kid because he/she was unfortunate enough to come into the world through the wrong birth canal?

 

You still haven't answered what we do with the 7 yr old who has bad parents, no family willing to take him/her in, and no other means of support.

 

No we're not going to punish them, their irresponsible parents will. 100% of the blame for any hardships their children face is theirs not society's or the government's.

 

Foster care. That's one government program I would support (with adequate safeguards of course).

 

Is a child better off in the care of a bad parent or a good foster home?

No we're not going to punish them, their irresponsible parents will. 100% of the blame for any hardships their children face is theirs not society's or the government's.

 

Foster care. That's one government program I would support (with adequate safeguards of course).

 

Is a child better off in the care of a bad parent or a good foster home?

 

Neither are good solutions unfortunately. Do we have enough foster homes?

 

You seem bent on worrying more about the "why" the child is in a bad situation that the "what are we going to do about it" concept.

 

We get it. We all agree. There are bad parents.

Who says all of these kids have other family to go to? Church members may already be stretched thin financially. Didn't Hillary get bashed for her "it takes a village" thinking?

 

There has to be a safety net.

 

Clyde, I've acknowledged that there would unfortunately be some kids that suffer because of their parents and because of the lack of someone else to provide the safety net under "my program". I'm not happy about that, but the alternative path of the govt taking care of everyone that this country seems to be heading will eventually in my opinion create more suffering for more people.

 

Do you believe that when the govt takes away the need to be responsible, more and more people become irresponsible?

 

Do you believe it is proper for the govt to force people acting responsible to take care of people acting irresponsible?

 

If I blow my money gambling, drinking, and chasing women that the govt should forcibly take your money to pay my mortgage and provide for my family?

You're absoultely right, there are no cut and dry answers. Yet, cut and dry answers are what are being proposed in this thread. Maybe it's a perspective. It's easy to be dispassionate about the fate of faceless children, until you've had children. Then every faceless child is your child's face when you think of their fate. Emotional response? You betcha. Do I feel guilty for feeling that way? No way. The issue is very close to my heart.

 

And that's what I love about you rockmom. You are a very caring and compassionate person. Kudos to you. :thumb:

 

However, I'm of the mindset that bad decisions are made when the heart controls the brain and I don't mean that in an offensive way.

 

Didn't some/many of Bush's detractors claim that the only reason we invaded Iraq was to get back at Hussein for allegedly attempting to assassinate Bush Sr? If true, wouldn't that be an example of making a poor decision based on emotions?

 

As I've oft stated, I truly love and respect liberals because their political philosophies are based on compassion and wanting to help people. But I think that such emotions can go to far and can cloud good decision making. I truly believe that if the govt continues on a path of wanting to take care of every one in need, more and more people will become dependent on the govt. You may disagree, but that's scary to me and my principles of personal responsibility and self dependence. When I see more and more people exercising the mentality of "I'm going to take govt benefits because I've paid so much in taxes" that alarms me. And if people are going to be forced to pay even more into the govt system, I'm concerned that such mentality is going to grow and I worry that at some time in the future whether we'll have more people taking money out of the system than are placing into the system.

 

Sky is falling thinking on my part? Perhaps. But from my experience and knowledge, most businesses don't fail because one sudden mistake; rather it happens gradually caused by a pattern of mistakes and mismanagement. I don't claim to be some great historian, but I want to recall that dynasties and empires haven't fallen because of one sudden mistake, but rather due to gradual decay and erosion of the values and principles that those dynasties and empires were built upon.

 

I guess the bottom line with me is wondering whether I'd advise my sons to spend a lot of time and money going to college and risk their personal savings to start a business and make money if I felt that the govt was going to take large portions of that money to provide for other people. The larger the portion taken by the govt, the less likely I think I am to advise my sons to do those thinks. With most things in business, it's a risk-reward thing. If the rewards become too small in relation to the risk, then you don't do it.

 

Should you feel guilty for thinking the way you do? No way. Not one iota. I'd only ask that you consider some of the concerns that I've raised. There has to be a fine balancing act done between helping people and placing too much of a burden on society to provide that help, and I'm concerned that the pendelum is swinging too far to the side of creating an excessive burden that will eventually be counterproductive to the best interests of America.

Clyde, I've acknowledged that there would unfortunately be some kids that suffer because of their parents and because of the lack of someone else to provide the safety net under "my program". I'm not happy about that, but the alternative path of the govt taking care of everyone that this country seems to be heading will eventually in my opinion create more suffering for more people.

 

Do you believe that when the govt takes away the need to be responsible, more and more people become irresponsible?

 

Do you believe it is proper for the govt to force people acting responsible to take care of people acting irresponsible?

 

If I blow my money gambling, drinking, and chasing women that the govt should forcibly take your money to pay my mortgage and provide for my family?

 

Bill and Sue are married with 5 kids. Bill has a solid job. Not a rich man but they get by living week to week. Bill decides to start gambling unbeknownst to Sue. Bill sucks at gambling. Bill loses the family money. Bill then can't handle the pressure and bails on his family. Sue can go out and get a job but her skills do not warrant a high salary so she can't pay her bills. They do not belong to a church. No family to help them out. Daycare for 5 kids is through the roof.

 

Now what? Should we punish Sue and her 5 kids even though they did absolutely nothing wrong?

Bill and Sue are married with 5 kids. Bill has a solid job. Not a rich man but they get by living week to week. Bill decides to start gambling unbeknownst to Sue. Bill sucks at gambling. Bill loses the family money. Bill then can't handle the pressure and bails on his family. Sue can go out and get a job but her skills do not warrant a high salary so she can't pay her bills. They do not belong to a church. No family to help them out. Daycare for 5 kids is through the roof.

 

Now what? Should we punish Sue and her 5 kids even though they did absolutely nothing wrong?

What about child support from the dad?

What about child support from the dad?

 

 

You do realize even if in that scenario the worthless bugger could be found, that child support would not pay the mortgage/rent/untilities/daycare/food/clothes/medical, etc.

 

I always think it's hilarious when people think child support is the cure all. When I got divorced, my child support didn't even cover 1/2 my day care expenses. :lol: