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:

Then give him custody.

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?

 

Why don't they belong to a church? How many people in this country have no family?

Join a church. And just to appease you if they can PROVE that they have absolutely no other resource then I could see granting some government assistance but only with some very serious strings. Among them would be documentation that she has tried to find employment that will cover her bills, that there are no frivolous household expenses (cable TV, cell phones, Internet, cigarettes, liquor), 100% accounting of where every penny of government money is spent as well as documentation of any other income. And before you ask, yes I want it to be difficult to maintain public assistance to the point that it is easier to find a job

What about child support from the dad?

 

Sure, if you can find him. What if you can't?

Why don't they belong to a church? How many people in this country have no family?

 

I think you'd be surprised at the answer to both questions.

 

"NO family" also includes the word "willing to take the child."

Join a church. And just to appease you if they can PROVE that they have absolutely no other resource then I could see granting some government assistance but only with some very serious strings. Among them would be documentation that she has tried to find employment that will cover her bills, that there are no frivolous household expenses (cable TV, cell phones, Internet, cigarettes, liquor), 100% accounting of where every penny of government money is spent as well as documentation of any other income. And before you ask, yes I want it to be difficult to maintain public assistance to the point that it is easier to find a job

 

How do you provide documentation that you've TRIED to find a job? How would we prove that it wasn't offered ? How much money would it cost to have someone checking out every person receiving aid to see if they are watching cable or smoking cigarettes? It would be cheaper just to give out the assistance.

Simple

Provide documentation that you went to an employment service or job interview and account far every minute during the work day, your job is finding a job. They wouldn't have to be checed up on 24/7 but they would be spot checked (unannounced). I forgot to mention random drug testing.

 

I want it to be so difficult to get and to saty on assistance that freeloaders won't want to do it because it would require to much effort on their part. That would cut the number of people on assistance and make it less expensive to check up on them. I am not willing ti say let's go ahead an pay the freeloaders so we can prevent a genuine recipient from missing out.

Stopping social aid isn't the answer. REFORMING the ADMINISTRATION of aid is.

 

Overhaul the system. I've already outlined in great detail my ideas in a thread a while back. If anyone is interested in digging it up, I thought there were some great ideas.

 

But, the answer is not to eliminate safety nets.

I think you'd be surprised at the answer to both questions.

 

"NO family" also includes the word "willing to take the child."

 

Surprise me and give me the answers. I'm genuinely curious to know what percentage of people in this country have no family that would be willing to take in another family member's child to help out for a while as the parent looks for work. If you can document that there is a large percentage of people in such a position, I'll be more willing to accept your point. But I seriously wonder if that really is the case.

 

Furthermore even if there is a large percentage of people in that position, do you think the present govt safety net has been partially responsible for that occurring? Unions no longer have the position of importance they once held because of all the laws that serve one major function the unions used to fill, which I feel has directly led to the shrinking of union membership; and I feel the growth of the govt safety net has likewise lessened one of the needs for a tight family which has resulted in the breakdown of the family. I think it's had the same effect on the church.

Surprise me and give me the answers. I'm genuinely curious to know what percentage of people in this country have no family that would be willing to take in another family member's child to help out for a while as the parent looks for work. If you can document that there is a large percentage of people in such a position, I'll be more willing to accept your point. But I seriously wonder if that really is the case.

 

Furthermore even if there is a large percentage of people in that position, do you think the present govt safety net has been partially responsible for that occurring? Unions no longer have the position of importance they once held because of all the laws that serve one major function the unions used to fill, which I feel has directly led to the shrinking of union membership; and I feel the growth of the govt safety net has likewise lessened one of the needs for a tight family which has resulted in the breakdown of the family. I think it's had the same effect on the church.

 

LN, you have completely skipped over Rockmom's post on Wednesday's child. Do you know that there are not even enough "respite" foster families to take foster children for a weekend to give the regular foster parents a break, and there are many many children waiting on adoption. WHERE IS THE CHURCH FOLK? WHY ARE THEY NOT OUT ADOPTING THESE KIDS?

LN, you have completely skipped over Rockmom's post on Wednesday's child. Do you know that there are not even enough "respite" foster families to take foster children for a weekend to give the regular foster parents a break, and there are many many children waiting on adoption. WHERE IS THE CHURCH FOLK? WHY ARE THEY NOT OUT ADOPTING THESE KIDS?

 

 

It's OK, ace. I'm used to being ignored. :isurrender:

LN, you have completely skipped over Rockmom's post on Wednesday's child. Do you know that there are not even enough "respite" foster families to take foster children for a weekend to give the regular foster parents a break, and there are many many children waiting on adoption. WHERE IS THE CHURCH FOLK? WHY ARE THEY NOT OUT ADOPTING THESE KIDS?

 

First of all, I was responding to Clyde's comments, not Rockmom's.

 

Second, Rockmom's point actually may confirm my theory; that the growth of the govt safety net has caused what what was an important function of the church to deteriorate. Furthermore, doesn't Rockmom's post confirm that the current use of the govt to act as the safety net isn't working? So let's forcibly take more of people's money in the form of increased taxes and throw more money at the problem? It's worked so well with education, I'm sure it will work with entitlement/welfare/social programs too. But what the heck, if you're not in a tax bracket that is going to get socked with higher taxes, who cares. Give it a shot. Sorry but I'm not buying it.

 

Clyde, you found those percentages for me yet?

First of all, I was responding to Clyde's comments, not Rockmom's.

 

Second, Rockmom's point actually may confirm my theory; that the growth of the govt safety net has caused what what was an important function of the church to deteriorate. Furthermore, doesn't Rockmom's post confirm that the current use of the govt to act as the safety net isn't working? So let's forcibly take more of people's money in the form of increased taxes and throw more money at the problem? It's worked so well with education, I'm sure it will work with entitlement/welfare/social programs too. But what the heck, if you're not in a tax bracket that is going to get socked with higher taxes, who cares. Give it a shot. Sorry but I'm not buying it.

 

Clyde, you found those percentages for me yet?

 

On second thought Clyde, don't bother. I'm firm in my belief on this issue and so are you. It's actually kind of foolish to keep going back and forth trying to convince one another that they are wrong. I'm done with this forum for a while. Have a great day my friend and Go Bulldogs!

On second thought Clyde, don't bother. I'm firm in my belief on this issue and so are you. It's actually kind of foolish to keep going back and forth trying to convince one another that they are wrong. I'm done with this forum for a while. Have a great day my friend and Go Bulldogs!

 

Kids living in foster care are not benefitting from the government's safety net. Why aren't good Christians adopting all of these unwanted children that were not aborted? they are out of the uncaring parents home (or the homes of parents who were unable to care for them) and there is not a line of adoptive Christian homes waiting. Why is that? Where are their grandparents, the family, that you speak of? Why aren't they living with their aunt and uncle? Why isn't the community taking care of them? Why doesn't the church have a plan on how to handle all of these needy children, why, why, why?

Kids living in foster care are not benefitting from the government's safety net. Why aren't good Christians adopting all of these unwanted children that were not aborted? they are out of the uncaring parents home (or the homes of parents who were unable to care for them) and there is not a line of adoptive Christian homes waiting. Why is that? Where are their grandparents, the family, that you speak of? Why aren't they living with their aunt and uncle? Why isn't the community taking care of them? Why doesn't the church have a plan on how to handle all of these needy children, why, why, why?

 

Sure they are, who do you think is paying the vast majority of the foster parents?

 

I believe LN is correct that the growth of the govt safety net programs has led to a corresponding decrease in the church or family stepping in. It's like they're saying "hey, since the government will do it why should we allocate our scarce resources to do it?" I've worked with families where that was stated outright. Of course when the government programs prove vastly inadequate these resources are already used elsewhere so the help is not there from the traditional sources. I wish I had an answer to the problem.