Why should my hard earned money go to those less fortunate?

[vorlon13]

I'd like to see aid for children disbursed 50/50 between mom and dad, regardless if they're still together or not.

And still failing to support the kid(s) with those funds by either party would still be a criminal (child neglect) offense.

[vorlon13]

As for the topic, let's discern the difference between 'fortunate' and 'ambitious'.

[Minimalist]

What if 'dad' is in jail?  Or dead because some trigger happy cop shot him because his license plate tag had expired?

[vorlon13]

I'd give a pass for dead, or incarcerated.

But just because mom and dad are assholes to each other doesn't preclude the state from protecting both parents rights to be involved in the care of the kid(s).

[Minimalist]

More to the point is what SC said:

Yes, there are people who take advantage of government assistance.

but I bet these aren't the motherfuckers that the OP is angry with.

http://usuncut.com/class-war/10-corporat...lood-boil/

10 Taxpayer Handouts to the Super Rich That Will Make Your Blood Boil

---

The next time you hear someone complain about how the poor get “all this free stuff,” show them this.

Let's take one example.

8. Welfare for Wall Street ($83 billion/year)
The biggest banks have grown even bigger than they were just before the 2008 financial meltdown. And due to their size, these banks are perceived as “too big to fail,” as their demise would spell doom for the US financial sector as a whole. So as these big banks grow bigger, the Federal Reserve allows them to borrow at lower interest rates than other big banks — essentially subsidizing the continued growth of the big banks. In 2013, Bloomberg estimated the ten biggest TBTF banks suck up $83 billion per year in corporate welfare.
If we were to force the big banks to borrow at the same interest rates as every other bank at a rate of $83 billion per year, that would be enough to double the current federal budgets for highway spending ($48.6 billion), Head Start ($10.1 billion), the Environmental Protection Agency ($7.89 billion), nutrition assistance for women, infants, and children ($6.2 billion), the National Parks Service ($3 billion), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ($2.39 billion), with $5 billion left over.

Let's see how much outrage you can whip up for that.

[Whateverist]

Personally, when faced with a choice between seeing children and the disadvantaged starve and allowing a few that abuse the system do so, I choose the former - and it's not even close.  Your mileage - and empathy - may vary.

Wait, really?  I think this may not have come out right.  Did you mean:

"..when faced with a choice between seeing children and the disadvantaged starve and allowing a few that abuse the system do so, I choose the latter.."

?

[SteelCurtain]

I think he did.

[brewer]

OP, if you have a viable solution for welfare reform I'd love to hear it. For most of the recipients I know, they are barely getting by. I don't know a single person abusing the system. Maybe I need to get out more.

[vorlon13]

going further,

and it would likely need to be phased in over time,

I would entertain discussion on aid to children being limited to the first gestation (including sires, obviously) for parents. Subsequent offspring would nevertheless be required to be supported by both parents (baring incapacities noted above, and including SSI type events) and if they weren't, the state would simultaneously step in with the support and the nonpaying parent(s) would spend the rest of the kids formative years in prison.

Everyone says kids come first, OK, then this is how we guaranty that happens.

And the neat thing about phasing it in would be the instant it becomes obvious we're serious about going all the way with this, the manifest need for it will dissipate virtually instantly.


And then the kids will be coming first, regardless.

[vorlon13]

pets too, I can't abide cruelty to critters