General Discussion

DLCWIdem

(1,580 posts)

42. It's for children not parents

Thu Feb 4, 2021, 03:16 PM

Feb 2021

Last edited Thu Feb 4, 2021, 06:03 PM - Edit history (1)

At a time when we are complaining that children are going hungry. It can be very helpful. Especially as it is just taking the CCC and giving the money at a different time. As to it you not needing help to raise your kids. That kind of argument is used by many of the Hispanic emigres when they talk about not giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship. Well times change and the fact that we can help provide should be applauded.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

133 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Mitt Romney has a plan to give parents up to $15,000 a year [View all] MelissaB Feb 2021 OP

Well, the Mormons will love it. BusyBeingBest Feb 2021 #1

Thank you! LuvNewcastle Feb 2021 #7

Same here Auggie Feb 2021 #12

Anyone who thinks $350/month encourages people to have kids hasn't had to pay for children DLCWIdem Feb 2021 #14

Why would you give people ANY money for having children, beyond BusyBeingBest Feb 2021 #26

It's for children not parents DLCWIdem Feb 2021 #42

Um, there's no guarantees on how that money will be spent--really, you think BusyBeingBest Feb 2021 #52

There's NEVER a guarantee for how the money will be spent. StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #62

I think people who make 200,000-400,000 are pretty wealthy. BusyBeingBest Feb 2021 #67

How do you prove they used the money for their kids? StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #70

Why create a financial incentive to have large families, for anyone? Poor or wealthy. BusyBeingBest Feb 2021 #73

You must not have children StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #75

I have two kids who are adults now. I would have thought this was dumb BusyBeingBest Feb 2021 #83

Correct! Goodheart Feb 2021 #107

I thought I was the only one who heard that Bettie Feb 2021 #97

Good point DeminPennswoods Feb 2021 #114

Other Modern Industrialized Democracies do it. Tommymac Feb 2021 #119

Yeah, the argument against it sounds suspiciously like "welfare encourages women to have more Blue_true Feb 2021 #116

Exactly. Utah. TomCADem Feb 2021 #19

My husband's younger cousins all have massive families--3-4-5 kids and up--they're all BusyBeingBest Feb 2021 #31

"Opposed to paying people to have children"? But why would you punish the child for that? Towlie Feb 2021 #27

How is it "punishing" children to NOT pay a tax-supported stipend to support other BusyBeingBest Feb 2021 #36

So is it the means tested that you object to. DLCWIdem Feb 2021 #44

I'd like to see a better use of money than just cutting checks, regardless. BusyBeingBest Feb 2021 #47

I am not for telling people what they need DLCWIdem Feb 2021 #55

This is the welfare queen myth come to life--actually paying people for each kid, every month. BusyBeingBest Feb 2021 #69

No, it's NOT "the welfare queen myth come to life." It is YOU who is propagating that myth StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #78

How am I propagating that myth, when the proposal is literally to pay BusyBeingBest Feb 2021 #85

I suggest you change your language if you wish to engage in a discussion with me StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #87

I wasn't cursing at you. But I removed the curse word so as not to offend you. BusyBeingBest Feb 2021 #89

Thank you StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #90

It absolutely pays people to have children. Three or more kids BusyBeingBest Feb 2021 #93

I was thinking the same thing. Nt marlakay Feb 2021 #51

This isn't "paying people to have children" - shitloads or otherwise StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #61

I hope it fails. Direct the money to things that actually help people far more broadly. BusyBeingBest Feb 2021 #71

This Meowmee Feb 2021 #118

Rule No. 1. The money is paid to the woman My Pet Orangutan Feb 2021 #2

Why? FreeState Feb 2021 #24

Those 'several households' are atypical. My Pet Orangutan Feb 2021 #34

Depends on location FreeState Feb 2021 #37

I can't say I've heard of too many cases My Pet Orangutan Feb 2021 #38

Really? FreeState Feb 2021 #88

Abuse happens "way more more common(ly)" to women. My Pet Orangutan Feb 2021 #92

How about lgbtq couples ? JI7 Feb 2021 #56

It will be interesting to see if this gets traction. still_one Feb 2021 #3

Hell no! I guess the purpose is to encourage white childbearing Dream Girl Feb 2021 #4

It's a great idea Loki Liesmith Feb 2021 #22

I am listening DLCWIdem Feb 2021 #45

How does this promote white childbearing FreeState Feb 2021 #28

You've kind of supported my point. White children bearing is lower than black and Hispanic. Dream Girl Feb 2021 #33

Um no. Are you a parent? themaguffin Feb 2021 #77

HE'S RUNNING greenjar_01 Feb 2021 #5

I agree. He is running DLCWIdem Feb 2021 #18

Why do you think that? He's not too popular among... brush Feb 2021 #39

Literally in the one line post greenjar_01 Feb 2021 #41

But you said he'd win the presidency. brush Feb 2021 #46

It's telling that you won't even say who "our candidate" or "the Democrat" will be greenjar_01 Feb 2021 #48

Whoa! Unusual thoughts for a Democrat. brush Feb 2021 #50

What the fuck??? greenjar_01 Feb 2021 #54

First off, we just won by 7 million votes. We outnumber repubicans.. brush Feb 2021 #57

People with children already get tax breaks TheRealNorth Feb 2021 #6

Correct! Goodheart Feb 2021 #100

Question. Why doesn't it kick in under 11,000 DLCWIdem Feb 2021 #8

presumably other help available at that level of poverty Kali Feb 2021 #17

Income limit is way too high. highplainsdem Feb 2021 #9

Cripes, who writes this stuff at vox? Other countries do far better at these benefits. And, one niyad Feb 2021 #10

Yes other countries have a sort of mom's pension DLCWIdem Feb 2021 #20

And paid family leave. niyad Feb 2021 #25

We're not calling it universal basic income, or universal health insurance lindysalsagal Feb 2021 #11

Seems like a reasoned approach JT45242 Feb 2021 #13

I like it. n/t Laelth Feb 2021 #15

What about people caring for aging parents? They are Politicub Feb 2021 #16

A very good point. niyad Feb 2021 #30

We've got to start somewhere StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #63

not so fast bigtree Feb 2021 #21

That doesn't bother me Loki Liesmith Feb 2021 #23

I'm not sure of the consequences bigtree Feb 2021 #60

I was not aware that mittens is part of TLP. niyad Feb 2021 #29

I use the term perjoratively bigtree Feb 2021 #59

I understood you very well. Your feelings about TLP are well-known. niyad Feb 2021 #72

that's absurd bigtree Feb 2021 #96

I oppose ANY proposal, Republican or Democratic, that encourages people to have children. Goodheart Feb 2021 #32

Why do you think this encourages people to have children? StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #65

I wouldn't, no, but some would, yes. Goodheart Feb 2021 #98

So you could be trusted to make responsible choices, but "some" other people can't. StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #104

More a matter of budget. Goodheart Feb 2021 #106

THIS. roamer65 Feb 2021 #76

Then don't worry, because this doesn't. themaguffin Feb 2021 #79

This message was self-deleted by its author themaguffin Feb 2021 #80

As someone who has a toddler, this would be a lifesaver. bearsfootball516 Feb 2021 #35

should recipients be required to prove they spend the money on their kids? nt msongs Feb 2021 #40

Why should they have to prove that? StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #66

Read the fine print. What will this do to current EIC, Child/Dependent Care and Tax Credits? haele Feb 2021 #43

But how about those parents who would like to stay home? DLCWIdem Feb 2021 #49

If this is a stimulus payment to help parents with raising children, I am good with that. haele Feb 2021 #68

"The Family Security Act " LudwigPastorius Feb 2021 #53

I trust Robert Reich's take on it Bettie Feb 2021 #58

TNAF and the child tax credit have been so demonized DeminPennswoods Feb 2021 #115

Looking at this post, for a lot of people Bettie Feb 2021 #117

This sounds promising StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #64

No subsidies for baby production. roamer65 Feb 2021 #74

Wow StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #81

Believe it. roamer65 Feb 2021 #84

I don't have a problem with your concern with population StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #86

I don't have a problem if it goes for adopted or foster children. roamer65 Feb 2021 #91

That's not what he said, and you know it. Goodheart Feb 2021 #102

Totally agree. Goodheart Feb 2021 #101

It's easy to spot non parents in this thread. JFC, the ignorance displayed here is sad. themaguffin Feb 2021 #82

Much of this thread reads like something we'd read on - well, let's just say -slightly less StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #94

I agree. DLCWIdem Feb 2021 #103

Sometimes true colors shine through when least expected ... StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #105

Ignorance? I have one son, and had enough income to afford several more Goodheart Feb 2021 #99

.. roamer65 Feb 2021 #108

Hold, I didn't say ignorance referring to having kids or not. FFS themaguffin Feb 2021 #109

Ontario has a similar program. roamer65 Feb 2021 #110

Ok, just the scientific information that we are looking for, your co-worker. themaguffin Feb 2021 #111

Since you love the idea so much, how do you propose to pay for it? roamer65 Feb 2021 #121

JFC, where did I say my thoughts on the policy at all? themaguffin Feb 2021 #130

Yes, people would have kids because of the proposed money. Goodheart Feb 2021 #122

That's ridiculous StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #125

Not to people who understand money. Goodheart Feb 2021 #126

Let's just keep creating money until we start a currency crisis. roamer65 Feb 2021 #127

It has nothing to do with understanding money StarfishSaver Feb 2021 #128

Oh, yeah? Which discussion board would that be? Goodheart Feb 2021 #129

Exactly. Some of the comments here are ignorant, both on policy & regarding parents themaguffin Feb 2021 #131

This message was self-deleted by its author DLCWIdem Feb 2021 #132

How is it not understanding money DLCWIdem Feb 2021 #133

Paid for by social security. Once again, Republicans are trying to kill madinmaryland Feb 2021 #95

I don't love it BGBD Feb 2021 #112

I hope this comes with backpay. egduj Feb 2021 #113

There was a study that indicated having another child... Buckeye_Democrat Feb 2021 #120

...or we can use them for Soylent Green. roamer65 Feb 2021 #123

Romney can vote for the Democrats proposal JonLP24 Feb 2021 #124