|
|
#1
11-16-2006, 05:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Dead Beat Dad\'s-Government Inefficiency, or, why welfare isn\'t so bad
As a preface, I don't have the numbers that I can link to.
This post is based off of a conversation that I had with a friend of mine who did an internship with the State of New York to do some grunt work as well as analyze certain government policies. He became quite disillusioned (of course) to a large extent because of the state going and getting money from dead beat dads. This relates to welfare and various other social programs, because often (and I'm not sure of the particular situation, it varries state to state and I mostly know about New Hampshire) welfare for unemployed single women with children is reduced because of child support, the child support doesn't come, the state comes after the dad's who owe the money, the mom and child wait around for the state to get the money from the dad (usually a few thousand dollars owed and they've often lost their jobs) to pay the mom and child so they can eat and pay rent. Sound relatively fair except that the child and mother may suffer while the state goes after the money owed to the mom and child. But here's the thing that is government inefficiency, and why welfare isn't so bad. The cost of going after these dead beat dads was 10 times the amount that the dads owed. So, rather than just giving the money to needy families, the prosecutors, investigators, judges and administrators get 10 times that instead. Want to save money...just give it to the poor. 
|
|
#3
11-16-2006, 06:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dead Beat Dad\'s-Government Inefficiency, or, why welfare isn\'t so
Would it be constitutional for a statute to pass on the costs of pursuit/litigation to the deadbeat dad?
Could possibly be a deterrent, but would it most likely take a broke guy with a job and turn him to a criminal on the black market (due to super high wage garnishments)?
|
|
#4
11-16-2006, 06:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dead Beat Dad\'s-Government Inefficiency, or, why welfare isn\'t so bad
I got a new plan. How about the women in question...
1) Not be [censored] by someone who will likely end up a dead beat dad. 2) Use suffient protection 3) Get an abortion 4) put the kid up for adoption 5) Rely on friends and family 6) Rely on charity Infinetly less tax dollars spent.
|
|
#5
11-16-2006, 06:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dead Beat Dad\'s-Government Inefficiency, or, why welfare isn\'t so
That would be just cruel and unual punishment. We would have to bring back debtor's prison, which is kind of a sickly humorous concept...you can't be free to work of the debt until you pay the debt.
|
|
#7
11-16-2006, 06:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dead Beat Dad\'s-Government Inefficiency, or, why welfare isn\'t so
No, it would be cuel and unsual to make him responsible for the state's fees associated with making him pay...10 times the amount he owed.
And I don't think it would be a deterent either, (if the first cost they couldn't afford wasn't a deterent, why would 10 times it be one?), it would simply cause even more poor people to file for bankruptcy and be eternally destitue.
|
|
#8
11-16-2006, 06:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dead Beat Dad\'s-Government Inefficiency, or, why welfare isn\'t so
[ QUOTE ]
I got a new plan. How about the women in question... 1) Not be [censored] by someone who will likely end up a dead beat dad. 2) Use suffient protection [/ QUOTE ]Both are ridiculously sexist.[ QUOTE ] 3) Get an abortion [/ QUOTE ]Some are morally opposed, some can't afford it, some find out they're pregnant too late in the pregnancy, some are under extreme pressure from their family / church / friends / community not to. Every pro-choice girl I've ever talked to about the issue has said they'd never get an abortion themselves.[ QUOTE ] 4) put the kid up for adoption [/ QUOTE ]As a guy I understand this argument, but women are very often just unable to do this, and if they do they suffer psychological effects their entire lives[ QUOTE ] 5) Rely on friends and family [/ QUOTE ]You think the people who need child support have those resources? If your sister got knocked up do you think you'd be responsible for supporting the kid?[ QUOTE ] 6) Rely on charity [/ QUOTE ]Riiiiiight. Not only is the amount of charity out there small, but it often comes with stipulations.
|
|
#9
11-16-2006, 06:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dead Beat Dad\'s-Government Inefficiency, or, why welfare isn\'t so bad
[ QUOTE ]
I got a new plan. How about the women in question... 1) Not be [censored] by someone who will likely end up a dead beat dad. 2) Use suffient protection 3) Get an abortion 4) put the kid up for adoption 5) Rely on friends and family 6) Rely on charity Infinetly less tax dollars spent. [/ QUOTE ] Here's an even better "plan". Have the children hire a private security guard before birth to prevent the conception from happening. The egg can buy a cannon and fight off the sperm. The sperm should have known better than to fertilize that egg. Look, you can try and break out all of this belt-tightening rhetoric if you want on the parents, but their is someone involved in this situation who cannot possibly be responsible for the situation, namely, the child. Responsibility arguments always must go both ways. [ QUOTE ] I got a new plan. How about the women in question... [/ QUOTE ] Good luck trying to implement this "plan" btw.
|
|
#10
11-16-2006, 06:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Dead Beat Dad\'s-Government Inefficiency, or, why welfare isn\'t so
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 1) Not be [censored] by someone who will likely end up a dead beat dad. 2) Use suffient protection [/ QUOTE ] Both are ridiculously sexist. [/ QUOTE ] Why? To me (a guy) that it's probably not a good idea for a chick to [censored] a guy that could run off if you end up pregnent. She's the one that would suffer if he runs off, should she not even think about the consequences? I personally think dead beats are scum, I just don't feel like having the costs externalized to me through taxes, I had nothing to do with it. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] 3) Get an abortion [/ QUOTE ] Some are morally opposed, some can't afford it, some find out they're pregnant too late in the pregnancy, some are under extreme pressure from their family / church / friends / community not to. Every pro-choice girl I've ever talked to about the issue has said they'd never get an abortion themselves. [/ QUOTE ] All the more the reason to abide by options 1 or 2, or just not have sex at all. No one's forcing these woman to have sex (sans rape of course). [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] 4) put the kid up for adoption [/ QUOTE ] As a guy I understand this argument, but women are very often just unable to do this, [/ QUOTE ] link? [ QUOTE ] and if they do they suffer psychological effects their entire lives [/ QUOTE ] Then they shouldn't put themselves in a position to be pregnant. Just as you shouldn't play above your bankroll, you just don't gamble when losing that gamble will cost you more then you can afford to lose. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] 5) Rely on friends and family [/ QUOTE ] You think the people who need child support have those resources? [/ QUOTE ] Some do, some don't. What's your point? [ QUOTE ] If your sister got knocked up do you think you'd be responsible for supporting the kid? [/ QUOTE ] What about when someone I'll never meet get's knocked up, why am I obligated to pay for it? I'm not saying friends and family have to, just that they do very often, and have throughout history. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] 6) Rely on charity [/ QUOTE ] Riiiiiight. Not only is the amount of charity out there small, but it often comes with stipulations. [/ QUOTE ] Your saying that something people are forced to pay for may not actually care about enough to voluntarily pay for it?  Bottomline: if society cares about funding single mothers when dead beat dads leave, then they will do so voluntarily. If they don't, should they be forced to fund it?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
