Yes, people ARE paying for kids that aren't theirs. But...HELLO!! If it was legal for a man to abandon his kid financially for life, then how many MORE kids will other people have to support? MILLIONS. Who can afford that? Why would a state go for that/ They wouldn't, they DON'T currently. There's NO way a state would allow people male or female to NOT support thier kids, how is that logical? The state doesn't want to pay, the taxpayers don't want to pay. The PARENTS should be paying. Period. So, counter that, smartiepants.
But "Hello", that is more so the female's fault for deciding to have a child who won't be able to get financially supported by the man. So instead of having a baby in which the mother knows the father won't support, she should not get pregnant by anyone except a man that she knows will financially support the child. But news flash. "Millions" of kids already are being paid for by the tax payers, all because the woman couldn't wait to look for a man that she knows will financially support the child. Not to mention, alot of females fall pregnant to keep a man in a relationship and get financially supported by child benefits. So in actual fact, a lot of the tax payers money is going to a child that was made for a woman to trap a man in a woman's life, and to claim free money.
But, like I said. "Millions" already is being paid for child benefits. So there goes your "Who can afford that" point.
They don't? Yep, I have a concussion by these facepalms you keep making me do. "They don't go for paying for millions to support kids" Yes they do. Chillllld bennnneeeefiiiiiiiiiits. < That was typed as if I was slowly saying it to you, since you can't understand simple things that have already been said.
There's no way? What? seriously? Adoption and abortion. Say it with me. Adooooption annnnd abortiooooon. Both choices a female has full control over. Oh, and just for the heads up. A lot of females survive on child benefits alone, so in all actuality, a lot of females are doing nothing financially to support themselves or their kids, except going down to an ATM to get the free money handed to them, all because they couldn't wait to find a man that would financially support her. Regardless, like I said in the comment listing the points you say are "retarded", females are leaving education with far more degrees, qualifications, etc. Which means she can get a job to financially support herself and the child on her own. But does she? Nope, she'd preffertaking the tax payers money rather than financially support her child and herself, which is possible, by working. For God sake; my mother supported three children with no benefits, she worked for her money. So if a single mother of three can do that, then how come a single mother of one can't?
The state doesn't want to pay - They do. Child benefits
The taxpayers don't want to pay - They do. Child benefits
The parents should be paying - Single mothers usually don't. Once again, child benefits.
Oh the hilarity of you saying "So, counter that, smatiepants", as if that was at all a challenge to counter. You didn't honestly think that couldn't be countered, did you?
...Actually, now that I think about it, I countered that point already, about three times now.
You're totally, absolutely WRONG that the state wants to pay for unsupported kids. It's the fucking LAW that people seeking assistance for their children go through CHILD SUPPORT/family court. They will NOT give assistance to people who refuse that. The state wants first and foremost to find the PARENT to see if they can garner support from them FIRST before they hand out money. So, on that 'point' you are absolutely, completely WRONG.
Ask a taxpayer if they want to pay for a deadbeat parent's kid. The answer will always be a resounding NO. Provided that there is a living, breathing parent of the child, any taxpayer would want to see that parent pay for their kid before they shelled out cash for an unsupported kid (that's why it's the fucking LAW to go after birth parents when applying for public assistance). Now, don't read me wrong here, I'm NOT saying people are 100% against govt assistance, not at all. many people are FOR it, there's NOTHING wrong with public assistance. What they are AGAINST is paying for a deadbeat's kids. The parent should pay, if they are alive and kicking.
A female can't adopt out a kid without the father's permission (unless after an exhaustive search, he cannot be found). It's not a one-sided decision. OK? It's not ONLY the female's choice.
You keep talking about welfare fraud or misuse. OK, and what? I, as everyone else, is against that, no one's arguing that welfare fraud is OK. It's illegal to defraud welfare. People do it all the time, and they get arrested for it all the time. But, anyway, it's not like getting welfare is like a fucking bonanza of cash. Bill Clinton changed the welfare laws, did you know that? No one can receive welfare for more than 60 months (5 yrs) in a LIFETIME. Consecutive or not. EVERY member of the household is subject to the time limit. So, a spouse can't collect for 5 years and then have the other spouse collect for the next 5 years, for example. Also, the rules changed on children. People used to actually have babies to get more welfare and to be able to stay on welfare longer. that all changed back in the 90's. Which proves, without a doubt, that taxpayers were fed up with paying for deadbeats and their kids. Taxpayers want people to support themselves, proven by a)just asking them, and b)proven by the changes and legal requirements involved with getting assistance. people on welfare who aren't disabled are also required to go to job training, job workshops, actively look for work, etc. If all that's not proof enough that taxpayers don't want to pay for deadbeats and their unsupported kids, then I don't know what to tell ya.
You are a kid, and you obviously don't know much about the 'system', or law. I'm not trying to insult you by saying that, not at all. I'm just saying you have a LOT to learn, and should definitely do some research before making some of the claims you make.
Abortion: Against or For?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Yes, people ARE paying for kids that aren't theirs. But...HELLO!! If it was legal for a man to abandon his kid financially for life, then how many MORE kids will other people have to support? MILLIONS. Who can afford that? Why would a state go for that/ They wouldn't, they DON'T currently. There's NO way a state would allow people male or female to NOT support thier kids, how is that logical? The state doesn't want to pay, the taxpayers don't want to pay. The PARENTS should be paying. Period. So, counter that, smartiepants.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
But "Hello", that is more so the female's fault for deciding to have a child who won't be able to get financially supported by the man. So instead of having a baby in which the mother knows the father won't support, she should not get pregnant by anyone except a man that she knows will financially support the child. But news flash. "Millions" of kids already are being paid for by the tax payers, all because the woman couldn't wait to look for a man that she knows will financially support the child. Not to mention, alot of females fall pregnant to keep a man in a relationship and get financially supported by child benefits. So in actual fact, a lot of the tax payers money is going to a child that was made for a woman to trap a man in a woman's life, and to claim free money.
But, like I said. "Millions" already is being paid for child benefits. So there goes your "Who can afford that" point.
They don't? Yep, I have a concussion by these facepalms you keep making me do. "They don't go for paying for millions to support kids" Yes they do. Chillllld bennnneeeefiiiiiiiiiits. < That was typed as if I was slowly saying it to you, since you can't understand simple things that have already been said.
There's no way? What? seriously? Adoption and abortion. Say it with me. Adooooption annnnd abortiooooon. Both choices a female has full control over. Oh, and just for the heads up. A lot of females survive on child benefits alone, so in all actuality, a lot of females are doing nothing financially to support themselves or their kids, except going down to an ATM to get the free money handed to them, all because they couldn't wait to find a man that would financially support her. Regardless, like I said in the comment listing the points you say are "retarded", females are leaving education with far more degrees, qualifications, etc. Which means she can get a job to financially support herself and the child on her own. But does she? Nope, she'd preffertaking the tax payers money rather than financially support her child and herself, which is possible, by working. For God sake; my mother supported three children with no benefits, she worked for her money. So if a single mother of three can do that, then how come a single mother of one can't?
The state doesn't want to pay - They do. Child benefits
The taxpayers don't want to pay - They do. Child benefits
The parents should be paying - Single mothers usually don't. Once again, child benefits.
Oh the hilarity of you saying "So, counter that, smatiepants", as if that was at all a challenge to counter. You didn't honestly think that couldn't be countered, did you?
...Actually, now that I think about it, I countered that point already, about three times now.
--
wigsplitz
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You're totally, absolutely WRONG that the state wants to pay for unsupported kids. It's the fucking LAW that people seeking assistance for their children go through CHILD SUPPORT/family court. They will NOT give assistance to people who refuse that. The state wants first and foremost to find the PARENT to see if they can garner support from them FIRST before they hand out money. So, on that 'point' you are absolutely, completely WRONG.
Ask a taxpayer if they want to pay for a deadbeat parent's kid. The answer will always be a resounding NO. Provided that there is a living, breathing parent of the child, any taxpayer would want to see that parent pay for their kid before they shelled out cash for an unsupported kid (that's why it's the fucking LAW to go after birth parents when applying for public assistance). Now, don't read me wrong here, I'm NOT saying people are 100% against govt assistance, not at all. many people are FOR it, there's NOTHING wrong with public assistance. What they are AGAINST is paying for a deadbeat's kids. The parent should pay, if they are alive and kicking.
A female can't adopt out a kid without the father's permission (unless after an exhaustive search, he cannot be found). It's not a one-sided decision. OK? It's not ONLY the female's choice.
You keep talking about welfare fraud or misuse. OK, and what? I, as everyone else, is against that, no one's arguing that welfare fraud is OK. It's illegal to defraud welfare. People do it all the time, and they get arrested for it all the time. But, anyway, it's not like getting welfare is like a fucking bonanza of cash. Bill Clinton changed the welfare laws, did you know that? No one can receive welfare for more than 60 months (5 yrs) in a LIFETIME. Consecutive or not. EVERY member of the household is subject to the time limit. So, a spouse can't collect for 5 years and then have the other spouse collect for the next 5 years, for example. Also, the rules changed on children. People used to actually have babies to get more welfare and to be able to stay on welfare longer. that all changed back in the 90's. Which proves, without a doubt, that taxpayers were fed up with paying for deadbeats and their kids. Taxpayers want people to support themselves, proven by a)just asking them, and b)proven by the changes and legal requirements involved with getting assistance. people on welfare who aren't disabled are also required to go to job training, job workshops, actively look for work, etc. If all that's not proof enough that taxpayers don't want to pay for deadbeats and their unsupported kids, then I don't know what to tell ya.
You are a kid, and you obviously don't know much about the 'system', or law. I'm not trying to insult you by saying that, not at all. I'm just saying you have a LOT to learn, and should definitely do some research before making some of the claims you make.