15
President Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act in 1996
Never forget how shitty Bill Clinton was.
Outside of specific shitty Bill Clinton reasons, the problem is enough of the electorate bought into the lazy welfare queen myth and the Democrats got the presidency because they were third-waying it (and Perot and Gulf War I). Bootstrap fever was high in the nineties.
Do you think playing into the myth helped Clinton? Or do you think people who buy it vote republican anyway, just like Kamala bragging about securing the border against migrant terror caravans, loans for small businesses, the most lethal military, etc?
Because to me it looks like he's just admitting the republicans were right, but saying they'll be more competent at harming minorities.
Imagine coming up with policies that actually help people rather than punish them. This is weird and sets such a dangerous precedent.
It's weird because that's basically the entire Republican voter base.
Normalization of removing rights. They're coming after political opponents next.
I live outside the US but can't renew my passport because I'm trans. They started a while ago
What do you mean "next?" Watch closely which party the parents they pick on belong to. 10:1 odds they're disproportionately Democratic.
*Black.
I don’t like this at all and it’s wrong.
Also, fuck parents who don’t pay child support for their own kids.
Also, fuck parents who don’t pay child support for their own kids.
I can't wholeheartedly agree with this statement, only because it puts the onus on the lowest rung involved parties.
Instead, I believe "fuck governments that don't provide enough support for a single parent to comfortably raise a kid."
I don't have kids, I don't want to have kids, but I also don't want to live in a world where a kid could starve or succumb to the elements because their parents weren't ready to have or raise a child. If a parent who doesn't pay child support means that their child's well-being is negatively affected, then a child with only one living parent could experience the same negative effects. Why should any single parent, or child of a single parent feel stress due to the absence of a single-entity third party?
Working in education, I frequently meet parents who don't want to be parents, and shouldn't be parents. I met people who believe that financial support equals ownership, and only continue harming their children because of mandated financial responsibilities. I meet single parents who are legitimately glad that the other party doesn't pay child support, because it equals freedom from oppression or abuse for the parent and child.
This comment kinda sounds like I'm attacking you, and I apologize for that, it's not my intent. My intent is to break as many people as possible from the belief that it's okay that raising a child costs two incomes. Raising a child should cost zero incomes, so that the people raising a child can experience the child as just a child and never a financial burden. I can't even say "fuck parents who don't help out," because there are plenty of parents who I don't want to see involved at all.
Nah, you’re good, I don’t feel attacked and I totally get where you are coming from. I don’t actually disagree with you, I think there should be more support for children and parents.
My comment is more a knee jerk reaction to “parents” like my father who decided it was more important to feed his affair partner’s 4 children over his own, even though they had child support from their father. He argued in court to reduce child support for his own 2 kids because he had 4 other kids at home to feed.
Yes, the government should step up in situations like that and there needs to be better support systems. I think breakfast, lunch, and sometimes even dinner should be provided at schools and kids shouldn’t have to ever pay for it. And this is coming from a woman who has never and will never have children. No kid should ever go hungry, period.
I’ll modify my comment to: Fuck the kinds of parents like my dad.
I'm so sorry you had to deal with that, and fuck your dad indeed. While I spent my previous comment railing against the institution vs the individual, I now see your comment as railing against the individual who does not use the established institution.
That's one of those "you would have helped more if you'd tried less," kind of scenarios. I'll never understand a parent who will punish children for their own choices.
I hope that you're doing better now, and I hope that telling your experiences helps to prevent or end even one situation similar to yours.
It’s all good. Probably didn’t help that my comment was pretty generic, I can see why you mentioned what you did and I totally agree with you.
I’m good now, just get a little bitter at times. He died of a non-inheritable cancer a few years ago and I felt more empathy that my Aunts lost their brother than anything. It’s been 30 years since he was around, so it’s hard to care much.
I honestly do hope someone reads my comment and rethinks how they treat their daughter some day. Just don’t be a dick to your kid and take care of them.
Have yourself a good day and tell those kids to read more books lol
I meet single parents who are legitimately glad that the other party doesn't pay child support, because it equals freedom from oppression or abuse for the parent and child.
I'm wondering where you are, since afaik, support and visitation/custody are generally separated.
Texas, and you are mostly correct. The people who say this are usually the ones who got full custody, no visitations, and the spouse stopped sending checks or quit their job out of spite. I've heard the remaining parent say that they'll gladly give up child support if it means that they never have to think about their ex again.
Back to the Texas part, and why you're "mostly" correct. Because it's Texas: where the wife is always wrong and the laws only protect those for whom it is enforced. Also, who are the police gonna trust? The overreacting parent who keeps calling them, or the one who always says they weren't doing anything?
"Oops, send out another Amber alert. The parent really should have said something if they knew this was gonna happen. Also, we would have been more likely to believe them if they didn't keep telling us all the time that this was going to happen."
Back to the Texas part, and why you're "mostly" correct. Because it's Texas: where the wife is always wrong and the laws only protect those for whom it is enforced. Also, who are the police gonna trust? The overreacting parent who keeps calling them, or the one who always says they weren't doing anything?
"Oops, send out another Amber alert. The parent really should have said something if they knew this was gonna happen. Also, we would have been more likely to believe them if they didn't keep telling us all the time that this was going to happen."
I'm in the Deep South, so yes, in cases of narcissistic abuse, crazymaking behavior is real, and the courts are just shit about it, even women judges and women on the juries (there's also the whole Bible Belt submissive women bullshit). Adding that 70+% of cops are (probably under) self-Reporter domestic/child abusers and it gets ugly as all Dante's circles of Hell. Which is why visitation being separate from child support is used here, for the most part.
Edit for terrible manners: thanks so much for a thoughtful, in-depth reply.
Which is why visitation being separate from child support is used here, for the most part.
Used and abused. Gotta love how we turn every shield into a weapon against those who need it.
Most tools can harm or help. I hope after the collapse of this fake ivory tower built on a sloppily built and crumbling foundation, we can lay a solid foundation and build something designed to be a solid shelter where we can heal the wounds we've inflicted on ourselves and other nations.
Okay everyone, say it with me!
It's because they're black, isn't it?!
From the article:
Passport revocations for unpaid child support of more than $2,500 is allowed under a rarely-enforced 1996 federal law.
Previously, the consequence was only doled out when people with such debt sought to renew their passports.
So, not new, just being more strongly enforced.
Edit: more context
Manosphere meltdown incoming
I'm fine with this. Pay your fuckin child support
If you actually give a shit about child poverty, universalist aid programs are a way more efficient and effective way to address that problem, but if you're just looking for an excuse to punish people and helping kids is beside the point rock on I guess
What if travel is needed for work to pay?
Until you realize that not having a passport is about to mean you can't vote.
The trick is making you think they care about people not paying child support. They've had decades to put other consequences in place. Why didn't they?
not having a passport is about to mean you can’t vote
Less than half of Americans have passports, and the ones who do are probably less likely to vote for republicans, they're not going to require a US passport to vote.
ones who do are probably less likely to vote for republicans
You said the quiet part out loud. Now learn about the loud part. Many people with passports didn't get the "RealID" because the Passport always usurped it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safeguard_American_Voter_Eligibility_Act
Edit: also this kind of "well, they won't do it" is literally how every other fascist state has come into being, so I hope you enjoy your ignorance while it lasts. No, I don't care about being nice. Time to grow up and stop with the whataboutism.
They won't do it because it would disenfranchise their own voters and enfranchise the opposition. Are you not American and confused the parties?
Edit: who is downvoting this? Are there people who think the republicans are going to rig the game against themselves?
Oh yeah, because it's simply impossible for them to send ICE into blue states to "secure the elections"
Sending ICE to polling locations has nothing at all to do with requiring passports to vote.
You're trolling, right? I can't imagine why I'd have to explain this otherwise.
Laws aren't magical spells that change reality. If Republicans introduce a law saying "you must have a passport to vote", people can still vote without a passport as long as nobody prevents them from doing so. Republicans can send ICE to polling stations in blue states to prevent people from voting without a passport.
They don't need a law saying that to send ICE to blue states to stop people from voting.
Of course they do if they don't want an open confrontation with the state's own forces.
They already send ICE to do illegal things in states without open confrontation with the state's own forces.
Ah yes, sorry, I forgot we're deliberately ignoring all nuance. So I agree: no matter from which perspective we look at it, there's literally zero reason for the politicians to show a stronger reaction towards completely losing their own power to the fascist regime.
The subject is "will Trump require passports to vote", and the answer is "no, because his own constituents are the least likely to have passports."
Everything else is just Qanon-style "yes and-" fantasizing.
Most of the MAGA base don't have passports because they are isolationists filled with fear and can't imagine the terror of going on a trip somewhere that requires a passport. A passport being required to vote would disproportionately affect Republicans. Possibly by orders of magnitude.
Don't take my word for it the data is there - WV and MS have less than 25% people holding passports.
I said the same thing and got downvoted wtf?
this post was submitted on 08 May 2026
15 points (100.0% liked)
News
37894 readers
670 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS