More theft?

[BeeR]

Some people shouldn't be allowed to continue to breed.

She shoulda ax somebody

 

"You have issues blah blah blah" [/lefty rant]

 

 

 

If the incentive is removed for having these kids how many of these welfare brood-mares would keep having them?

Stop making sense. The lefty extremists HATE that. This is America you fool, Land of Non-accountability.

 

Speaking of extremes, what's also sad to me is how often it takes cases this extreme for people to see the light on such things.

[detlef]

"You have issues blah blah blah" [/lefty rant]

 

 

 

Stop making sense. The lefty extremists HATE that. This is America you fool, Land of Non-accountability.

 

Speaking of extremes, what's also sad to me is how often it takes cases this extreme for people to see the light on such things.

How about you start making sense. Or better still, how about you stop pretending the "lefties" are saying things they're not just because it's easier to argue against.

[Azazello1313]

Honestly, I don't give much of a crap about mom, but there's 12 kids involved in this mess that didn't ask to be born. And as long as we want to go around the world saying "we're better than you" then we need to step up and see to it that those kids aren't selling chicklets on the streets. Do I relish the notion that things like this are happening? Absolutely not. Do I think this woman is basically at fault? Absolutely. Do I think that part of what makes America great is the fact that you don't have (many) children begging on the streets? You bet your ass.

 

it's a paradox, really. you don't want people, especially kids who have no say in how they got there, to struggle in poverty. of course, 90% of the kids in the world have to confront brutal living conditions and there's not a damn thing anybody can do about that, but we don't like to see it in our back yards. but when you try to take steps to alleviate it, in many cases all you really do is increase the number of kids born into that kind of situation.

 

I recently started reading one of the most fascinating books I've ever come across, Gregory Clark's "A Farewell to Alms", which purports to be a "brief economic history of the world". his thesis is that only very recently (since the industrial revolution), and only in the developed "western" world, has society been able to escape the "mathusian trap", in which increases in living standards drive increases in population, which in turn just drives living standards back down to the subsistence level. I don't really have the time or inclination to elaborate on that much right now, except to recommend the book highly.

[detlef]

it's a paradox, really. you don't want people, especially kids who have no say in how they got there, to struggle in poverty. of course, 90% of the kids in the world have to confront brutal living conditions and there's not a damn thing anybody can do about that, but we don't like to see it in our back yards. but when you try to take steps to alleviate it, in many cases all you really do is increase the number of kids born into that kind of situation.

 

I recently started reading one of the most fascinating books I've ever come across, Gregory Clark's "A Farewell to Alms", which purports to be a "brief economic history of the world". his thesis is that only very recently (since the industrial revolution), and only in the developed "western" world, has society been able to escape the "mathusian trap", in which increases in living standards drive increases in population, which in turn just drives living standards back down to the subsistence level. I don't really have the time or inclination to elaborate on that much right now, except to recommend the book highly.

You're absolutely right and that does sound like a good read.

 

Here's my question though. To what degree does welfare actually perpetuate the situation? Reagan was bringing this issue up 30 years ago. Has it gotten much worse? That is, the number of people who have specifically decided to exploit the system through having more kids? Or at least, has it gotten much worse all things being equal (population growth, overall economic environment, etc). Again, the way some here talk about it, the promise of a government paycheck is the primary reason why poor people have kids. I have a hard time believing that's the case anywhere near as often as they assume.

[Azazello1313]

the way some here talk about it, the promise of a government paycheck is the primary reason why poor people have kids. I have a hard time believing that's the case anywhere near as often as they assume.

 

I don't think anyone would say that. people have kids because they can. when the costs are made easier to bear, people have more of them.

[wiegie]

I'm not opposed to making women get a Depo Provera shot every three months while they are collecting welfare or food stamps for their children. They have demonstrated an inability to provide for the child/children they currently have, so until they can start providing for such children, it is reasonable to expect that they will not have any additional children.

[detlef]

I don't think anyone would say that. people have kids because they can. when the costs are made easier to bear, people have more of them.

Somebody is...

 

If the incentive is removed for having these kids how many of these welfare brood-mares would keep having them?

 

and somebody is agreeing with it...

 

Stop making sense. The lefty extremists HATE that. This is America you fool, Land of Non-accountability. thmbup.gif

 

Regardless, I don't even think that people have more kids because the gov't check allows them to. Again, at least not as much as some might think. I would guess that rarely comes into the equation at all. I think these women get knocked up because they're hoping to find a man or they get knocked up because the man they find is a lying sob, or because they're just plain careless. Not saying any of these reasons are good. Not saying that it's a good thing for people with no money to spit out kids. Just saying that I need to see some reason other than that it makes a convenient argument against something that costs me money that welfare actually contributes to the number of poor people with kids. Well besides the fact that dead people don't make babies.

Edited April 29, 2010 by detlef

[General Itals]

Stoopid is as stoopid does. Kids now headed to foster care.

[Duchess Jack]

this sucks, but I believe it is the exception to the rule - rather than the rule... kind of like the corrupt bank CEOs making all big business look bad.

 

how do you fix this though?

 

do you force kids into foster care?

do you force sterilize?

do you let them starve or get sick?

do you set up state day care and force people to work?

 

its sucks - it would be great if it could be fixed - but I sure as heck don't know how.

[Duchess Jack]

Stoopid is as stoopid does. Kids now headed to foster care.

wow.

[Perchoutofwater]

That's easy to say until you start seeing children die in the streets.

 

Where in the united states is this happening? I don't think anyone is advocating allowing kids to starve. There are some that are advocating taking kids away from negligent parents. The orphanage route is one way I think many would like to see explored. I like Weigie's idea about birth control shots for anyone on welfare. I'd also wouldn't be against sterilization of a woman that has three or more kids and is on welfare. We

[Perchoutofwater]

this sucks, but I believe it is the exception to the rule - rather than the rule... kind of like the corrupt bank CEOs making all big business look bad.

 

how do you fix this though?

 

do you force kids into foster care? YES

do you force sterilize? YES

do you let them starve or get sick? NO

do you set up state day care and force people to work? YES

its sucks - it would be great if it could be fixed - but I sure as heck don't know how.

 

Seems as though you do.

[Duchess Jack]

Where in the united states is this happening? I don't think anyone is advocating allowing kids to starve. There are some that are advocating taking kids away from negligent parents. The orphanage route is one way I think many would like to see explored. I like Weigie's idea about birth control shots for anyone on welfare. I'd also wouldn't be against sterilization of a woman that has three or more kids and is on welfare. We

not that it applies here, but I think everybody should need to pass a drug test to get any federal or state aid as well. if you can afford the pipe - you can afford food and rent.

 

welfare mom + failed drug test should equal foster care in most cases IMHO (unless the mom/dad agrees to counceling - and that can only buy them so much time)

Edited April 29, 2010 by Duchess Jack

[Duchess Jack]

Seems as though you do.

options 1 and 4 are reasonable... but there is a lot of grey area so, option 2 is pretty harsh.

 

I've always been a fan of manditory sterilization with somebody's second abortion though

[detlef]

Where in the united states is this happening? I don't think anyone is advocating allowing kids to starve. There are some that are advocating taking kids away from negligent parents. The orphanage route is one way I think many would like to see explored. I like Weigie's idea about birth control shots for anyone on welfare. I'd also wouldn't be against sterilization of a woman that has three or more kids and is on welfare. We

That's the whole point. It's not and shouldn't be. I believe Steve wrote that in response to some saying "survival of the fittest works for other species..."

 

That's the thing. Don't like welfare? That's understandable. So propose something else. Like you just did. However, there's a bit too much, "she got herself into this, let her find a way out" getting thrown around in this thread and not enough discussion on what to actually do about those who fall through the cracks. After all, jail is more expensive than welfare, so arresting them doesn't make any more sense.

 

Oh and as for "forcing people to work" Are you going to hire someone who's been "forced to work"? I sure as hell am not. I've got enough people coming to me looking for work who actually want it.

Edited April 29, 2010 by detlef

[Perchoutofwater]

That's the whole point. It's not and shouldn't be. I believe Steve wrote that in response to some saying "survival of the fittest works for other species..."

 

That's the thing. Don't like welfare? That's understandable. So propose something else. Like you just did. However, there's a bit too much, "she got herself into this, let her find a way out" getting thrown around in this thread and not enough discussion on what to actually do about those who fall through the cracks. After all, jail is more expensive than welfare, so arresting them doesn't make any more sense.

 

Oh and as for "forcing people to work" Are you going to hire someone who's been "forced to work"? I sure as hell am not. I've got enough people coming to me looking for work who actually want it.

 

Well, there are two issues, what to do with the kids, and what to do with the parents. I obviously have a whole lot more compassion for the kids than I do for the parents. We actually have a kid that came from a situation similar to this living with us. The kids should be taken care of, and every effort should be made to set the kid on the right path.

 

The parent is a different story all together. Frankly I don't have much compassion at all for someone like this woman who feels she is owed something. You know from previous conversations I'm a big fan of charity, voluntary charity I should say, not the coerced type our government forces some of us to become involved in. With the parents, hell yeah, make them work. No I don't want them working for me, but I really wouldn't mind seeing them working for the county picking up trash on the side of that road or something like that.

[untateve]

Actually I believe this is exactly what is happening. As long as we keep footing the bill, women like this will continue to breed unchecked, not unlike a stray dog or cat. There are extremely poor, ignorant, addicted people in the ghetto who have known no better life. In the name of compassion, we write them checks so they can produce more and more of them, then we pay for their trials and incarceration.

 

Survival of the fittest works pretty well for the rest of the animal kingdom, maybe we shouldn't tinker with it.

 

 

That's easy to say until you start seeing children die in the streets.

 

 

Where in the united states is this happening? I don't think anyone is advocating allowing kids to starve. There are some that are advocating taking kids away from negligent parents. The orphanage route is one way I think many would like to see explored. I like Weigie's idea about birth control shots for anyone on welfare. I'd also wouldn't be against sterilization of a woman that has three or more kids and is on welfare. We

 

Where did I say it is happening in the United States?

 

I think one can reasonably assume that when another posts "survival of the fittest works pretty well for the rest of the animal kingdom, maybe we shouldn't tinker with it," that individual may be advocating the no assistance should be provided to the adult or the children . In the animal kingdom, often times if the mother dies, so does her children because there is no one to care for them.

[untateve]

Well, there are two issues, what to do with the kids, and what to do with the parents. I obviously have a whole lot more compassion for the kids than I do for the parents. We actually have a kid that came from a situation similar to this living with us. The kids should be taken care of, and every effort should be made to set the kid on the right path.

 

The parent is a different story all together. Frankly I don't have much compassion at all for someone like this woman who feels she is owed something. You know from previous conversations I'm a big fan of charity, voluntary charity I should say, not the coerced type our government forces some of us to become involved in. With the parents, hell yeah, make them work. No I don't want them working for me, but I really wouldn't mind seeing them working for the county picking up trash on the side of that road or something like that.

 

 

Please define "every effort." I guarantee that for most of these children, minimal effort is made to "set the kid on the right path." As a result, many of these children will grow up and engage in what they have learned.

[Perchoutofwater]

Please define "every effort." I guarantee that for most of these children, minimal effort is made to "set the kid on the right path." As a result, many of these children will grow up and engage in what they have learned.

 

You provide them with food, shelter, education, and mentors. Try to find families that will take them in and care for them. Try to have them learn from someone who is responsible. There are plenty of families willing to take in kids (provided they aren't already so screwed up that they pose threat to the family). The kid we have living with us now was 16 when we took him in. He had no idea how to do much of anything productive. We've had plenty of "shake your head" moments where you think to yourself "what was he thinking". I never will forget when we asked him to Josh Gordon the flower bed and he did it with a line trimmer. Point being all most of these kids need is a little direction and a little discipline and structure.

[bushwacked]

You provide them with food, shelter, education, and mentors.

 

And exactly how do you to this for each and every kid without the "forced charity" by the govt. you are diametrically opposed to?

[Perchoutofwater]

And exactly how do you to this for each and every kid without the "forced charity" by the govt. you are diametrically opposed to?

 

I don't. Unfortunately the days of local charity taking on problems like this are long gone as they have been killed by big government and it's backers like you. What I would suggest is only provide forced charity for the kids, and to actively seek families that are willing to take in kids with out payment. I think is part of the problem with foster parents in so many cases they are in many case no better and often times much worse than the welfare mamas. You look for people that are willing to take the kids in without compensation.

[SEC=UGA]

I think a Modest Proposal is called for here

[untateve]

You provide them with food, shelter, education, and mentors. Try to find families that will take them in and care for them. Try to have them learn from someone who is responsible. There are plenty of families willing to take in kids (provided they aren't already so screwed up that they pose threat to the family). The kid we have living with us now was 16 when we took him in. He had no idea how to do much of anything productive. We've had plenty of "shake your head" moments where you think to yourself "what was he thinking". I never will forget when we asked him to Josh Gordon the flower bed and he did it with a line trimmer. Point being all most of these kids need is a little direction and a little discipline and structure.

 

 

Food, shelter, and even education is easy. Mentors? Like Big Brothers? When I was working community mental health I forget how many years of a waiting list there was for Big Brothers.

 

I disagree with your point and I do so enthusiastically. Most of these kids need a hell of a lot more than a little discipline and structure.

 

Children are egocentric in their thinking. They are unable to take on the perspective of others s(lowly, over time, this changes). Have you ever heard that when children learn that their parents are getting divorced, they assume that this is happening because of their bad behavior and they promise to be good from now on? The children believe that their bad behavior led to their parents' divorce because of egocentric thinking.

 

Now, what does a child come to believe about himself when he is neglected by his mother and/or father? You know, it is quite typical for a child to believe that his parent has rejected/abandoned him when he is removed from his parent's care by Family Services. And because children are egocentric in their thinking, the child comes to believe that there must be something wrong with him or why would his mother abandon him? Thus the seeds of depression and low self-concept are born. When one believes that one is a loser, one does not seek to make improvements. Why? Because deep down, the child knows he will fail and it is too much to have to face that failure so instead, the child simply does not try.

 

Imagine what relationships are like for these kids. Ever seen a woman go from one abusive relationship to another? 99 times out of 100, as a little girl, she was abused in some way. You start working with them and deep down, they seek out losers because they KNOW they'll be rejected by good men. It all goes back to childhood.

 

I'm really--and I mean really, only scratching the surface for the type of psychological/emotional problems many of these children develop. By the time many of these kids become involved with Family Services, a little discipline and a little structure is not going to make a dent. Because deep down, they know that these new foster parents are going to reject/abandon them. They know this because deep down, these kids know there is nothing lovable about them. And rather than have to face more rejection, these kids will subconsciously sabotage a good placement because at least they can tell themselves that they weren't rejected again. This time, it was their decision.

 

I've a bit of professional experience in this area.

[detlef]

I don't. Unfortunately the days of local charity taking on problems like this are long gone as they have been killed by big government and it's backers like you. What I would suggest is only provide forced charity for the kids, and to actively seek families that are willing to take in kids with out payment. I think is part of the problem with foster parents in so many cases they are in many case no better and often times much worse than the welfare mamas. You look for people that are willing to take the kids in without compensation.

You're going to need to elaborate a bit on this. I am not familiar with government muscling charities "out of business" in this regard.

[untateve]

You look for people that are willing to take the kids in without compensation.

 

What is your experience in this area? I know that when I worked in community mental health, there were nights when children were removed from their home that they slept in the office of their social worker because there weren't even any foster homes available. People do not generally want these children in their home because they are not easy to manage and because of the emotional/behavioral problems they have.

 

As respectfully as I can say this, your statement could not be more fantastic.