# Mandatory birth control for welfare? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 1, 2008, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832 "2008-02-01T06:24:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2015, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832/181 "2015-03-24T17:55:46Z")
> [@Oregon\_sunshine](#): > > HOLY SHIT. This board has gone insane. _This board_?:dubious::rolleyes: “Pro” has been I think two “guests”. Con has been 3-4 time that, many of whom are Charter members, who more represent the board than some “guest”. Look, anyone can post here, and a few outre ideas by a guest- idea that are quite possible not being seriously proposed, but proposed either just to get a rise or to stimulate debate- does not in any way indicate what way this board has or is going. **Cheshire Cat:** \* Oh, you can’t help that. Most everyone’s mad here.\* ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2015, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832/182 "2015-03-24T18:54:26Z")
> [@Soylent\_Juicy](#): > > Unfortunately you can’t force people to be responsible about birth control and unfortunately women’s bodies are able to create babies that the parents (one or both) are unable to take care of. Hence the problem. They can’t be forced to take personal responsibility but we as taxpayers can be forced to support their children? ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2015, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832/183 "2015-03-24T19:20:29Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > We live in the same television market. Trade schools are advertised every bloody 10 minutes. Right. Scam artists like DeVry University. Where, for a large sum of money, you may or may not learn useful skills. More trades used to be taught in schools. But those who hate children also hate public education–so they should be glad that these programs are among the many that are cut. And they are! ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2015, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832/184 "2015-03-24T19:56:37Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Yes, please read the ENTIRE article for comprehensive before replying next time. > > There is a small group of people who are chronically poor (usually due to a lot of dysfunction), but most people do not remain in the system long. The fact that people don’t remain in the system long doesn’t show that most people on welfare weren’t always poor which is your claim. Your cite DOES NOT back up your claim. People can go off welfare for a multitude of reasons–children aging out, time limits on how long you can be on a particular program, people who stop looking for work, criminal convictions, and simply getting a raise from $12K/yr to 13K/yr (numbers made up.) Those people were poor before they got on welfare, they are poor while on welfare, and they’re still poor after they leave welfare. No where does it say that MOST people (your words) on welfare were middle class or better before they went on welfare. Your personal experience notwithstanding. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2015, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832/185 "2015-03-24T20:20:53Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > People can go off welfare for a multitude of reasons–children aging out, time limits on how long you can be on a particular program, people who stop looking for work, criminal convictions, and simply getting a raise from $12K/yr to 13K/yr (numbers made up.) > > Those people were poor before they got on welfare, they are poor while on welfare, and they’re still poor after they leave welfare. Pretty much “welfare” ended in the USA back in 1996. > **[Welfare spending](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare#United_States)** > > Welfare spending is a type of government support intended to ensure that members of a society can meet basic human needs such as food and shelter. Social security may either be synonymous with welfare,\[a\] or refer specifically to social insurance programs which provide support only to those who have previously contributed (e.g. pensions), as opposed to social assistance programs which provide support on the basis of need alone (e.g. most disability benefits). The International Labour Org More b... _The United States has no national program of cash assistance for non-disabled poor individuals who are not raising children._ ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2015, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832/186 "2015-03-24T21:01:02Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > You are really thick. And that is a direct, personal insult for which you are being Warned to refrain in the future. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2015, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832/187 "2015-03-24T21:58:50Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Hence the problem. They can’t be forced to take personal responsibility but we as taxpayers can be forced to support their children? Yes. That is how representative democracy works. If you disagree, you can vote in representatives to repeal the laws. Can you think of a better system? ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2015, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832/188 "2015-03-24T23:00:51Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > If children are born before going on welfare, then it’s free money like it is now. If you have a child while on welfare, you still get the money but it is not free. It is a low-interest government loan to be paid back once you are off welfare. > > May not be perfect but at least it is a solution. Well, yeah, that’s a new idea to me but I think there may be some merit there. > [@D\_Anconia](#): > > People can go off welfare for a multitude of reasons–children aging out, time limits on how long you can be on a particular program, people who stop looking for work, criminal convictions, and simply getting a raise from $12K/yr to 13K/yr (numbers made up.) No kidding those numbers are made up. Are you even aware of what “welfare” is these days? Sure, kids can “age out” of TANF but they may well still qualify for food stamps - which, by the way, has no lifetime limits (although there may be work requirements attached). So far as I know, the only sort of criminal convictions that bar you from food stamps are drug convictions, others still allow you to qualify (although it’s been awhile since I reviewed the rules so that may not be 100% accurate). So… are food stamps welfare? Or is it only TANF? What definition are you using? > [@](#): > > Those people were poor before they got on welfare, they are poor while on welfare, and they’re still poor after they leave welfare. No where does it say that MOST people (your words) on welfare were middle class or better before they went on welfare. If they’re poor BUT make too much money to qualify for welfare _what do you care?_. You now want to order around people who are NOT on welfare, but still don’t make enough money to make you happy? Tell me, what’s your cut off for “I make enough money that D’Anconia no longer has any business butting into my life”? ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2015, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832/189 "2015-03-24T23:51:46Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Are you even aware of what “welfare” is these days? Sure, kids can “age out” of TANF but they may well still qualify for food stamps - which, by the way, has no lifetime limits (although there may be work requirements attached). Yes, that’s what I said, people can lose their benefits for failure to meet work requirements. > [@](#): > > So far as I know, the only sort of criminal convictions that bar you from food stamps are drug convictions, others still allow you to qualify (although it’s been awhile since I reviewed the rules so that may not be 100% accurate). What about cases of fraud against the government? Pretty sure you lose your benefits then, as well. Also if you are incarcerated for any extended period of time. A prisoner is already a “guest” of the state, with three hots and a cot, and the state isn’t going to send food stamps to itself. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > So… are food stamps welfare? Or is it only TANF? What definition are you using? This question is what definition _you_ are using, since you made the following claim back in post #136. > [@Broomstick](#): > > Again - most people on “welfare” have NOT always been poor Again, this is a position for which you’ve offered no support. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2015, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832/190 "2015-03-25T03:33:59Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > What about cases of fraud against the government? Pretty sure you lose your benefits then, as well. Also if you are incarcerated for any extended period of time. A prisoner is already a “guest” of the state, with three hots and a cot, and the state isn’t going to send food stamps to itself. :rolleyes: Are you aware that most people aren’t sentenced to life? Once they’re back on the street they can, indeed, qualify for government benefits aside from the already noted exceptions. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2015, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832/191 "2015-03-25T03:54:36Z")
**Ms. Broomstick** Do you have any backup for your claim in post # 136? I’m not going to be asking again, because banging one’s head against the wall gets old fast. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2015, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832/192 "2015-03-25T04:01:32Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > No, sweatheart, social security is NOT a “pension fund”. They did not take your tax money (because that’s what is was and is, a tax) and put it into a “super-secret curlcoat account” neatly labeled with your name. They took your tax money and used it to pay for those already retired at the time. Aside from this not being true, I didn’t say any of that. > [@](#): > > When you retired you started receiving the tax money of those still working. You really should actually research things rather than just believing whatever the talking heads are telling you. > [@](#): > > Welfare can be and frequently is given to people who have long contributed to society and are only temporarily in need of help. They did not nothing wrong they just had a run of bad luck, and given a chance will get back on their feet. Their ideal life is to be independent citizens their whole lives. I said this before - cite? > [@](#): > > If you genuinely need help and refuse that help when offered it doesn’t make you proud it makes you stupid. > > “Pride” that leads to hunger or living in a box or the back of a car is nothing good, it’s corrosive and destructive. Oh please. People put their hands out long before anything like that happens. People with pride don’t start looking for those handouts at the first sign of trouble. > [@Broomstick](#): > > I think it’s more disturbing that you plan to do nothing for those children who are here, living and breathing. OK, cut off all assistance - what happens to those kids? How do they eat? Get vaccinations and medical care? I snipped off the rest of this rant for space sake. I have already listed several other ways to deal with this issue that doesn’t involve paying people to have babies, and you didn’t like any of them, so I’m simply not going to get into it again. > [@](#): > > First of all, as you’ve been told before, YOU CAN NOT RECEIVE “WELFARE” ANYMORE WHILE DOING NOTHING. Not since 1996 - hell, this is NOT news! You either 1) have a job or 2) are looking for a job or 3) in school or 4) caring for a child under 5 - and even then you might still be required to do all of the above part time. Again, you should research before stating “facts”. If nothing else, who is going around checking to see if all these folks on welfare have a job/are looking for a job/in school? That’s right, no one because the funds aren’t available. As for caring for a child under 5, that’s why welfare encourages people to have more children. > [@](#): > > You have this fantasy about what “welfare” is that I doubt ever matched reality and CERTAINLY does not match today’s reality. Well, it doesn’t match whatever your reality is, but seeing as how I spent many years living under the poverty level, I do have a good grasp of how people on welfare act. The rest I snipped because it seems like the poster is working hard at misunderstanding what I post. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2015, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832/193 "2015-03-25T04:10:17Z")
> [@SciFiSam](#): > > (Note: this “why” was in response to me saying that too many “outs” makes a law inpractical). > > The reason is that it would increase administration fees and also increase the chance of administrative error because the more there is to administrate the more errors there will be. Cough. Seems like this would be status quo for the government … 🆒 Would it really cost that much more to have a list of medications, etc that make Norplant (or whatever) not required. And would that cost be more than what it would cost to do the Norplant (or whatever)? > [@](#): > > I think you’re right that I’d be given an out due to my medication, but there are lots of medications that prevent women carrying a pregnancy. There are also women who just can’t get pregnant and could prove it. Anyone on a medication long term that essentially makes the woman sterile and anyone who can prove they are unable to get pregnant would just need to provide the paperwork once and that’s that. Like me - I had a tubal in 1989. > [@](#): > > And would you have an age cut-off ? Where would that age be? 40? 45? 47? 50? 55? Forever? No, age would be covered under “reasons why I can’t get pregnant” - i.e. being post menopausal. > [@](#): > > Would it be reasonable to require a 49-year-old woman to take this medication even though it’s extremely unlikely that she could have children? There have been several cases of women conceiving naturally even after 50. ([Wiki link](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_over_age_50). I think some of the cases there are dubious ((only counting the non-assisted ones - I’m dubious about some of the older ones where age might not be definite)), but a few definitely aren’t). Here you are getting into something that I really have no idea about. I know a lot of older women have babies, but I am unaware of whether or not they had any help. > [@](#): > > When considering whether to introduce a change to welfare you should always, if you’re not doing it for purely political reasons, take into account changes in administration costs and chances of administration error. Of course, most changes to welfare are for purely political reasons, but on this board we don’t depend on the whim of voters. I want to change welfare because of financial reasons, and because far too many children are growing up in very poor situations. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2015, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832/194 "2015-03-25T04:21:37Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > And, as I noted, this is NOT a problem solely of the poor. But somehow you’re content to ignore the problem of kids of higher socio-economic classes ditching class or dropping out. This is the only part I will address, since the rest is either not a response to anything I’ve said, or more of the same. Anyway, since I don’t pay to raise kids of higher socio-economic classes, it is not my responsibility to deal with them ditching class or dropping out. > [@Hector\_St\_Clare](#): > > Not really. Because I think that A) reproduction and childrearing (within reason) are important human goods that people shouldn’t be derprived of merely because they are poor, and B) maintaining replacement level fertility is a critical challenge for developed society, and if we don’t pay people to do it, then they won’t do it. As some of the more economically conservative Asian countries are discovering. Also C) I don’t want to encourage people to have abortions, and I’m happy to pay them money if that means they keep the baby. Whoa. A) OK, I personally don’t get why everyone and anyone, whether they are at all qualified to do so or not, has the iron clad right to have as many kids as they want, whether they can care for them or not. Why is that the only absolute right people have? B) What? You think if we don’t fund poor people to have kids they can’t afford to raise, we won’t have enough replacements? C) This is a moral/religious decision which should not be forced on those who do not have a problem with abortions. Particularly in the case of someone having a baby just so they can get on welfare. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2015, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832/195 "2015-03-25T12:55:19Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > **Ms. Broomstick** Do you have any backup for your claim in post # 136? > > I’m not going to be asking again, because banging one’s head against the wall gets old fast. Ms. D’Aconia, I actually work for a living and thus am not available 24/7 to fetch cites for you. Stop nagging me and I might actually get around to fulfilling your request in a day or two when I actually have more than 10 minutes to spend on line. If you’re going to be a one-note singer why should I bother. Stop banging your head, exercise a little patience, and we’ll all be happier. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2015, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832/196 "2015-03-25T13:09:03Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > This is the only part I will address, since the rest is either not a response to anything I’ve said, or more of the same. Anyway, since I don’t pay to raise kids of higher socio-economic classes, it is not my responsibility to deal with them ditching class or dropping out. The problem is that kids of _any_ socio-economic class who drop out or are abused or neglected are also more likely to drop in socio-economic level (i.e. wind up on welfare) or engage in criminal activities, either of which might potentially impact you. That’s why you should have some interest in children being raised well regardless of whether tax money is involved or not. > [@](#): > > A) OK, I personally don’t get why everyone and anyone, whether they are at all qualified to do so or not, has the iron clad right to have as many kids as they want, whether they can care for them or not. Why is that the only absolute right people have? It’s not an absolute right, but you are correct it’s a pretty important one to most people. It’s because for most people having kids is a high priority for them, even if you never wanted any yourself. Part of the reason the right is so protected is because in the past it wasn’t and some cruel abuses occurred. In reaction, the pendulum swung the other way. > [@](#): > > B) What? You think if we don’t fund poor people to have kids they can’t afford to raise, we won’t have enough replacements? The only reason the US population is growing is actually immigrants (yes, including the illegal ones). The higher socio-economic classes are not having sufficient children to replace themselves, so yes, either we let poor folks have kids, too or bring in more foreigners. The situation is even worse in Europe and some parts of Asia like Japan - the birthrate is below replacement rate. Yes, some governments actually give ALL parents money/subsidies/etc. to encourage more kids. Apparently, the best birth control is education and wealth. > [@](#): > > C) This is a moral/religious decision which should not be forced on those who do not have a problem with abortions. Particularly in the case of someone having a baby just so they can get on welfare. Although I don’t agree that people have babies to “get on welfare”, I do agree with you that such decisions should not be forced on people. Reproductive freedom should include the right to say no as well as yes. Poor people really do have less access to abortions than the wealthy and I’d like to see that changed, not because I think abortions are wonderful (I’d rather women not get unwantedly pregnant in the first place) but I believe poor women should have as much access to ending a pregnancy as her wealthy sisters. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2015, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832/197 "2015-03-25T16:03:27Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > > [@Broomstick](#): > > > > No, sweatheart, social security is NOT a “pension fund”. They did not take your tax money (because that’s what is was and is, a tax) and put it into a “super-secret curlcoat account” neatly labeled with your name. They took your tax money and used it to pay for those already retired at the time. > > Aside from this not being true, I didn’t say any of that. > > > [@](#): > > > > When you retired you started receiving the tax money of those still working. > > You really should actually research things rather than just believing whatever the talking heads are telling you. > > > [@](#): > > > > Welfare can be and frequently is given to people who have long contributed to society and are only temporarily in need of help. They did not nothing wrong they just had a run of bad luck, and given a chance will get back on their feet. Their ideal life is to be independent citizens their whole lives. > > I said this before - cite? I am not going to bother looking up citations because, having watched your schtick for several years, I know that you simply ignore anything that does not fit into your belief system, but you are wrong and Broomstick is right on each of these points. Alternative old age funding was only one of the uses for which the Social Security System has been used from its earliest days. Lots of people (typically dependent children with a few other categories added) get SSI benefits when a primary caregiver dies. Spouses and children of retired workers were added to the system in 1939, four years after the initial law and one year prior to the first pay-out. Disability benefits were added in 1954. Had Social Security been a pension fund, no one could have received any benefits before their “account” had built up enough funds to be disbursed. The reality is that, with inflation, (and longer lifespans), most retirees receive more money than they ever paid in, supported by existing taxes. As to Welfare, there is a reason that the 1996 change limited the payments to two years: at that time, over 66% of the people who went on welfare found ways to get off in two years or fewer. Even in the bad old days when welfare had no limit, the vast majority of people got off it as son as they could. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2015, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832/198 "2015-03-25T17:21:38Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > The problem is that kids of _any_ socio-economic class who drop out or are abused or neglected are also more likely to drop in socio-economic level (i.e. wind up on welfare) or engage in criminal activities, either of which might potentially impact you. That’s why you should have some interest in children being raised well regardless of whether tax money is involved or not. Which circles back to - why is it that the only absolute right people have is the right to reproduce, no matter how unsuited they might be? > [@](#): > > It’s not an absolute right, It isn’t? When is it not? > [@](#): > > Part of the reason the right is so protected is because in the past it wasn’t and some cruel abuses occurred. When was it in the US that people didn’t have the right to reproduction? > [@](#): > > The only reason the US population is growing is actually immigrants (yes, including the illegal ones). The higher socio-economic classes are not having sufficient children to replace themselves, so yes, either we let poor folks have kids, too or bring in more foreigners. “Bringing in more foreigners” is a problem how? > [@tomndebb](#): > > I am not going to bother looking up citations because, having watched your schtick for several years, I know that you simply ignore anything that does not fit into your belief system, but you are wrong and Broomstick is right on each of these points. It helps if you set aside your ill-conceived bias and actual read (and understand) what has been written. (Oh, and no need to respond to my PM, since you have answered my question right here.) > [@](#): > > Alternative old age funding was only one of the uses for which the Social Security System has been used from its earliest days. Lots of people (typically dependent children with a few other categories added) get SSI benefits when a primary caregiver dies. Spouses and children of retired workers were added to the system in 1939, four years after the initial law and one year prior to the first pay-out. Disability benefits were added in 1954. > Had Social Security been a pension fund, no one could have received any benefits before their “account” had built up enough funds to be disbursed. The reality is that, with inflation, (and longer lifespans), most retirees receive more money than they ever paid in, supported by existing taxes. Perhaps you should look up the definition of “pension” since you seem to think that it only pays out after a certain age, until a certain amount is reached. Maybe your pension only does that, but - for example - the pension I will get from the employer I worked for the longest doesn’t work that way. If I manage to live a normal lifespan, I will get more from that than I put in, and that isn’t coming from anything other than the payments I and my co-workers made AND the investments the employer made with that money. For another example, one of my husband’s pensions will go to me should he predecease me. It also has a long term disability clause. You should also read up on Social Security and how it is funded before you start squawking about taxpayer money going to those on it. For a place that is supposed to be fighting ignorance, an amazing number of people here " simply ignore anything that does not fit into (their) belief system". Social Security is no more like welfare than unemployment benefits are. > [@](#): > > As to Welfare, there is a reason that the 1996 change limited the payments to two years: at that time, over 66% of the people who went on welfare found ways to get off in two years or fewer. Even in the bad old days when welfare had no limit, the vast majority of people got off it as son as they could. Since **Broomstick** can’t seem to do it, do you have a cite for “the vast majority” getting off welfare asap, and also not going back on it as soon as they could? If nothing else, 66% is not the vast majority, and it doesn’t say anything about those who just figure a way to get back on. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2015, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832/199 "2015-03-25T17:34:05Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > When was it in the US that people didn’t have the right to reproduction? When considered spreading bad genes, like being a career criminal\* or mentally defective See _Buck v. Bell_. The last confirmed forced sterilization was in Oregon in 1981 although there is reason to believe that forced sterilization is still legal under certain conditions. \*_Skinner v Oklahoma_ did not make forced sterilization for criminals illegal. It simply had trouble with that particular law because white-collar criminals were specifically excluded. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2015, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832/200 "2015-03-25T17:38:25Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > You should also read up on Social Security and how it is funded before you start squawking about taxpayer money going to those on it. This is gibberish that responds to nothing I have posted. Typical. As to your PM: I rarely respond to personal vendettas attempted through that medium, so you do, indeed, have your answer. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mandatory-birth-control-for-welfare/435832.md?page=11)