Rand Paul Suggests Cutting Benefits For Unwed Mothers With Too Many Kids

[240 is Back]

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) suggested the possibility of cutting government benefits for unwed mothers who have multiple children.

“Maybe we have to say ‘enough’s enough, you shouldn’t be having kids after a certain amount,’” said Paul, who opposes legal abortion and has criticized the federal health care law’s contraception mandate as a violation of religious and economic liberty.

The likely 2016 presidential candidate made the remarks during a luncheon in Lexington, reported the Lexington Herald-Leader, in response to a question about workforce development.

The conservative senator said communities or families should be responsible for the prevention of unplanned or unwanted pregnancy, but he said government policies could discourage unwed mothers from having additional children. “Married with kids versus unmarried with kids is the difference between living in poverty and not,” Paul said.

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/26/enough-is-enough-rand-paul-suggests-cutting-benefits-for-unwed-mothers-with-too-many-kids/

[tonymctones]

yes if youre taking money from the govt you should be doing everything necessary to get to the point where you are self sufficient and having more kids you cant afford is not doing that.

[240 is Back]

I've heard of the 2-kid limit/cap on welfare benefits, I like the idea.

Or.... I know people on both sides of the aisle will complain... but I love the idea of offering every child (in counties with very high teen birth rates) an elective option of taking the shot for cash.   You know... $1000 cash, and you get a ten-year birth control shot. (Do they have those?  I know of the 5 year thing...)

Offer it to anyone 12 or older.  Some will opt for it, some will decide against.  completely voluntary.  Add up the costs of 10,000 babies... from pre-natal to birth to many years of govt benefits... vs a 1-time shot.

I bet the productivity of those counties would skyrocket too... more kids going to college and sending $ back into that community, starting businesses, etc.  Completely voluntary and very cost effective.

I know, those that don't live in reality will say "Oh, we shouldn't have to, screw that, tell people to stop having sex and getting preggo", but in reality, that won't happen.  

[headhuntersix]

There are places in KY that are worse then anything I've ever seen. No jobs because the coal industry has been gutted by the Left and guys like Obama, nothing to replace it either. Its a great idea but the wack job Left will take a big swipe at him for this. I think instead of piecemealing all this shit and getting hammered by the welfare whiners....just explain that the country can no longer afford these programs and that the entire system will crash if we continue it. Push that message above all the individual ones. Its easy to back up. Obamacare as en example..you want healthcare for people..fine, except nobody can afford this crap and companies like Target will either drop you from your plan of fire you because its become to expensive for the company to cover everybody. Use clear examples..and fucking go for the throat..when you have Hil or whoever hemming and hawing over Obama's record and the liberal economic disaster he's presided over...end it this time. Slit their throat oand move on. The left will whine after the debate but soon the facts will win our...or you can dither like Mitt.

[temple_of_dis]

I say at 10 fix all women and only get to have kid with 500k down payment.

no more welfare kids

[JBGRAY]

Not going to happen.  These are the masses that overwhelmingly vote Democrat, or, almost as importantly, identify primarily with the Democratic Party. Besides, if you cut off their various benefits, then where do you think unsupported children/teens/adults will do?  Sit in their Section 8 apartment and starve?  No, they will likely be out burglarizing homes and assaulting people that are of more financial means.

Sure, one can grandstand about sterilization, but be forewarned that once implemented, that very procedure could come around to affect YOU.  With the Democrats inching ever so closer to a permanent majority in the Executive and Legislative branches, I would not feel very comfortable as a middle class, white, gun-owning individual.

[RRKore]

Not going to happen.  These are the masses that overwhelmingly vote Democrat, or, almost as importantly, identify primarily with the Democratic Party. Besides, if you cut off their various benefits, then where do you think unsupported children/teens/adults will do?  Sit in their Section 8 apartment and starve?  No, they will likely be out burglarizing homes and assaulting people that are of more financial means.

Sure, one can grandstand about sterilization, but be forewarned that once implemented, that very procedure could come around to affect YOU.  With the Democrats inching ever so closer to a permanent majority in the Executive and Legislative branches, I would not feel very comfortable as a middle class, white, gun-owning individual.

Compelling argument, for sure.  It'd be interesting to know if anyone has officially analyzed the economics of such issues since it seems to me that a significant portion of the money saved by not giving it to "welfare queens" will need to be spent on police and other forms of security.  (In Thailand, for instance, which is a place with a crappy social safety net and many have-nots, private security guards are everywhere.)

Also, anyone know offhand where Rand Paul stands on abortion and birth control issues?  If he's consistent, he'll be for both...though that'd make him different than most in his party.

[tonymctones]

Compelling argument, for sure.  It'd be interesting to know if anyone has officially analyzed the economics of such issues since it seems to me that a significant portion of the money saved by not giving it to "welfare queens" will need to be spent on police and other forms of security.  (In Thailand, for instance, which is a place with a crappy social safety net and many have-nots, private security guards are everywhere.)

Also, anyone know offhand where Rand Paul stands on abortion and birth control issues?  If he's consistent, he'll be for both...though that'd make him different than most in his party.

so the strategy is to continue to let the welfare queens hold the rest of us hostage?

and even if he is against abortion how is that inconsistent? He is consistently for people taking responsibility for themselves and their actions....

[RRKore]

so the strategy is to continue to let the welfare queens hold the rest of us hostage?

and even if he is against abortion how is that inconsistent? He is consistently for people taking responsibility for themselves and their actions....

I think "the strategy" should be to do whatever makes the most economic sense and not get caught up in some out-of-proportion outrage at being figuratively "held hostage".   

If he's against abortion it would be inconsistent in that he'd want to restrict the birth rate of unmarried women and yet be trying to take away a major tool for doing so. 

[tonymctones]

I think "the strategy" should be to do whatever makes the most economic sense and not get caught up in some out-of-proportion outrage at being figuratively "held hostage".   

If he's against abortion it would be inconsistent in that he'd want to restrict the birth rate of unmarried women and yet be trying to take away a major tool for doing so. 

what makes the most economic sense is to just cut them off.

He isnt trying to restrict the birth of unmarried women moron, he is saying if youre on the govt dime you should be living responsibly.

Taking care of the child created by a conscious decision is living responsibily....

[SamoanIrishman]

Don't forget it will also be about circumstances. Ghetto slut with 6 babies and 6 baby daddies or an devoted (usually no college education) housewife for 10yrs with 4 kids who's husband and sole provider was killed in a car accident 3 months ago.

I think gov't needs to come down harder on guys paying child support and possibly helping pay for her to get educated so she can contribute to the support. Then they will think twice about fucking everything in sight and running off.

[tonymctones]

Don't forget it will also be about circumstances. Ghetto slut with 6 babies and 6 baby daddies or an devoted (usually no college education) housewife for 10yrs with 4 kids who's husband and sole provider was killed in a car accident 3 months ago.

I think gov't needs to come down harder on guys paying child support and possibly helping pay for her to get educated so she can contribute to the support. Then they will think twice about fucking everything in sight and running off.

Let be intellectually honest and admit that the vast vast majority of welfare "queens" are not stay at home moms who's husband died or left them. It's young uneducated women who have multiple kids and have never been married...

The govt needs to come down on both the dead beat dads and the idiotic women who have their children

[JBGRAY]

The vast majority of the benefits (benefits as in being a part of the social security safety net) are NOT going to unwedded, single mothers with too many children.  The majority of Americans are getting a slice of the benefits pie to some degree.  Many immigrants, both of the legal and illegal varieties, receive substantial benefits packages.  Remember the Boston Marathon bombers?  They were part of an upper middle class family that somehow received substantial government-aided income.

- We have people going on well over 10 YEARS+ of receiving unemployment compensation.
- Medicaid/Medicare recipients on average are spending FAR more than what they've put in throughout their work history.
- Farmers receive substantial government subsidies in an attempt to control costs and limit profit.
- Receivers of SSI receive more SSI than they've put in throughout their work history.
- Veterans' expenditures are constantly on the increase. (This is tough to debate and will receive a lot of flak over it) You can claim a bad back while only doing two years of service, and be compensated for life.
- There is a 2 year waiting list to receive Section 8 Housing.....meaning, housing is full and filled with corruptness and graft.
- Energy subsidies.
- Government pensions/retirements.  Rather than a 401k program, many city and state governments are severely strained at having to pay pensions and medical costs to retired employees....many employees who invariably "double-dip" and draw two retirements while continuing to work.
- Large corporations receive multiple tax cuts, low rate "giveaway" loans, and subsidies. It isn't just the individuals getting into the action, big corporations are dependent on government as well.

[24KT]

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) suggested the possibility of cutting government benefits for unwed mothers who have multiple children.

“Maybe we have to say ‘enough’s enough, you shouldn’t be having kids after a certain amount,’” said Paul, who opposes legal abortion and has criticized the federal health care law’s contraception mandate as a violation of religious and economic liberty.

He'll never get the Mormon, or Catholic vote with comments like that. lol
...and you can forget the redneck hillbilly vote too. 

[24KT]

The right's hero Rand Paul is beginning to echo the sentiments of Communist China's one child policy at it's height.
Gotta love the irony. 

[RRKore]

The vast majority of the benefits (benefits as in being a part of the social security safety net) are NOT going to unwedded, single mothers with too many children.  The majority of Americans are getting a slice of the benefits pie to some degree.  Many immigrants, both of the legal and illegal varieties, receive substantial benefits packages.  Remember the Boston Marathon bombers?  They were part of an upper middle class family that somehow received substantial government-aided income.

- We have people going on well over 10 YEARS+ of receiving unemployment compensation.
- Medicaid/Medicare recipients on average are spending FAR more than what they've put in throughout their work history.
- Farmers receive substantial government subsidies in an attempt to control costs and limit profit.
- Receivers of SSI receive more SSI than they've put in throughout their work history.
- Veterans' expenditures are constantly on the increase. (This is tough to debate and will receive a lot of flak over it) You can claim a bad back while only doing two years of service, and be compensated for life.
- There is a 2 year waiting list to receive Section 8 Housing.....meaning, housing is full and filled with corruptness and graft.
- Energy subsidies.
- Government pensions/retirements.  Rather than a 401k program, many city and state governments are severely strained at having to pay pensions and medical costs to retired employees....many employees who invariably "double-dip" and draw two retirements while continuing to work.
- Large corporations receive multiple tax cuts, low rate "giveaway" loans, and subsidies. It isn't just the individuals getting into the action, big corporations are dependent on government as well.

Thanks for your post (which is likely accurate) but as a democrat, I'd prefer that righties continue to target poor single mothers and their children. 

[24KT]

Thanks for your post (which is likely accurate) but as a democrat, I'd prefer that righties continue to target poor single mothers and their children. 

 

[dario73]

He'll never get the Mormon, or Catholic vote with comments like that. lol
...and you can forget the redneck hillbilly vote too. 

Really?

It went right over your head that he is calling for responsibility. But, responsibility is a foreign notion to all libtards. So I can't blame you too much.

Many catholics vote for candidates that approve abortion.

Pelosi claims to be catholic.  Enough said.

[dario73]

Thanks for your post (which is likely accurate) but as a democrat, I'd prefer that righties continue to target poor single mothers and their children. 

Yes. We will continue to teach them responsibility and empower them to lift themselves up economically.

Instead of teaching them, as democrats do, that they are useless and their only hope for them and their children is to forever stay on welfare and continue the same cycle for all future generations. Democrats want "poor single mothers" to stay dependent on the government. The manipulation of entitlement dependency  is the sole reason for democrats being in power right now.

[RRKore]

Yes. We will continue to teach them responsibility and empower them to lift themselves up economically.

...

Then what you're also likely to do is to alienate the female gender and therefore continue to lose elections.  So knock yourself out, Mr. Responsibility.

The political right these days is fantastically good at this kind of thing, it seems to me: 
- Oh, the economy sucks and a lot more people can now be considered "poor"?  Then let's demonize the poor -- that should be popular, right?
- Oh, the Hispanic population is larger than ever before (and growing)? Quite obviously we need to get behind policies that demonize them -- that should be popular, right?

Inclusion, mofo's.  Learn it, live it, love it. 

Naw, just kidding:  Short of a space alien invasion, y'all are bunch of insecure misanthropes who're unlikely to ever embrace all your fellow humans.

[JBGRAY]

The Democrats are not winning the political battles due to their policies of so-called inclusiveness, but rather their ability to draw in various groups via the promise of benefits packages and effectiveness of demonizing their enemies  (under the guise of tolerance, of course).

[240 is Back]

The USA gets poorer every day.  higher unemployment every day.  These folks become dependent upon govt for $.

And they become democrats.

It's that simple.  Obama knows it.   Dems don't win the white house when the economy is good and everyone is doing well.

[tonymctones]

The vast majority of the benefits (benefits as in being a part of the social security safety net) are NOT going to unwedded, single mothers with too many children.  The majority of Americans are getting a slice of the benefits pie to some degree.  Many immigrants, both of the legal and illegal varieties, receive substantial benefits packages.  Remember the Boston Marathon bombers?  They were part of an upper middle class family that somehow received substantial government-aided income.

- We have people going on well over 10 YEARS+ of receiving unemployment compensation.
- Medicaid/Medicare recipients on average are spending FAR more than what they've put in throughout their work history.
- Farmers receive substantial government subsidies in an attempt to control costs and limit profit.
- Receivers of SSI receive more SSI than they've put in throughout their work history.
- Veterans' expenditures are constantly on the increase. (This is tough to debate and will receive a lot of flak over it) You can claim a bad back while only doing two years of service, and be compensated for life.
- There is a 2 year waiting list to receive Section 8 Housing.....meaning, housing is full and filled with corruptness and graft.
- Energy subsidies.
- Government pensions/retirements.  Rather than a 401k program, many city and state governments are severely strained at having to pay pensions and medical costs to retired employees....many employees who invariably "double-dip" and draw two retirements while continuing to work.
- Large corporations receive multiple tax cuts, low rate "giveaway" loans, and subsidies. It isn't just the individuals getting into the action, big corporations are dependent on government as well.

I'm not sure about all govt handouts but a rrkore mentioned welfare queens I was specifically referencing welfare.

And yes the vast majority of welfare recipients are single mothers under 30 with 2+ kids who have never been married and have at most a high school diploma...I as well as others have posted citation after citation to show the stats.

Remember these are the people that rrkore and jagson believe are living responsibly!!!

[tonymctones]

The right's hero Rand Paul is beginning to echo the sentiments of Communist China's one child policy at it's height.
Gotta love the irony. 

Lmfao only in the mind of a libtard does "stop having Children you can't afford" equal "stop having children all together no matter what"

You are what I mean fellas how do you take this dip shit serious?

[RRKore]

Lmfao only in the mind of a libtard does "stop having Children you can't afford" equal "stop having children all together no matter what"

You are what I mean fellas how do you take this dip shit serious?

So China's policy is/was "stop having children all together no matter what"?  Where did you pick that up?  (Lemme guess, Tejas?)  Cuz as Dwight Schrute would say, "FALSE!"

Let me lay some learnin' on ya:  There were and are a lot of exceptions to that rule including, for some provinces, the ability to pay a fee for each additional child.

So, truthy but not the truth.  Fact-Check yo'self before ya...you know the rest, right G?