Britain's silent, scandalous epidemic

[c1ue]

Re: Britain's silent, scandalous epidemic

I'm the one who made that comment so I will make it clear that you entirely misinterpreted my objective. Contrary to your earlier insulting statement, I am not jonesing for a "eugenics attack" against the poor or against anyone. I have no objection whatsoever to poor people reproducing. I have no objection to poor people. But I do have an objection to people bringing children into the world when they must depend on taxpayers to financially support them.

Your comment contains several assumptions which are wrong:

1) That someone who is on welfare now is on welfare forever.

Need I point out how this is wrong?

2) That someone who needs welfare due to the birth of a child is there solely because of their bad judgment.

There are all sorts of situations where this happens without any fault from the parent. They include: death of spouse. abandonment by spouse. job loss and/or poor economic conditions. child with major health problems. self with major health problems. the list goes on and on.

As for your comment that you aren't trying for a eugenic attack - in fact you are. That it is based on 'judgment' in your view rather than 'bad genes' is no different.

If you care to read the commentary from the eugenics crowd in the past, their arguments were identical to yours: that poor people were morally corrupt, unethical, and irresponsible and thus should not be allowed to pollute society.

You are also missing the entire point of welfare: welfare exists for the purpose of enabling people to attain self sufficiency and be able to contribute to society.

The trap which the Republicans have led so many people into is perverting this goal into a personal feeling of being parasitized.

Inbreeding? Really? Did I miss something? Sometimes I think you create offensive notions out of thin air just so you can argue with them. If someone did in fact mention inbreeding earlier, then please accept my apology.

What happens when you segregate the 'winners' and the 'losers' in terms of their ability to reproduce? SNAP now accounts for 46 million or so Americans. Medicaid covers over 50 million. By your own arithmetic, a very large part of the American population should not be allowed to reproduce.

You are projecting that my proposal comes from a sense of moral outrage and a desire to punish. It doesn't. I don't care if the reason a man is not supporting his children is because he's a good man who can't make enough money or because he's a deliberate deadbeat dad. The fact is, other people are having their earnings forcibly taken from them in order to support his children. I'm just saying that if someone is depending on support from taxpayers to raise their children, they have a responsibility to make sure they don't create even more of a burden to the taxpayer by having more children.

No, I'm not.

I enunciating that the judgment of whether a man is deadbeat or not is just as politically charged as saying people on welfare are stupid, immoral, and unfit to reproduce.

I knew a man who was a former nuclear construction worker. When that industry went down under a barrage of environmental attacks, he went back to school and got an electrical engineering degree. In the meantime, his wife decided to divorce him. She remarried with the child support attorney she had talked to, took custody of the 2 kids, then nailed him with child support despite the fact that between her (and her new job in the child support division in the county she lived in) and her new husband, they made literally 4 times the income the 'deadbeat dad' did. And even then, the 'deadbeat dad' loved his kids and was perfectly willing to contribute what he could, though as a new 42 year old contract engineer, it wasn't much. Back then we were both starting out, and were getting paid $2500/month. His child support plus alimony was $800/month.

He wound up shooting himself.

From this, I have little sympathy for black and white judgments on 'deadbeat dads', 'predatory divorcees' and so forth, and greatly detest the idea of government mandating life altering acts on individuals.

We have a system already for addressing deadbeat dads; use it or fix the problems that are there.

[shiny!]

Re: Britain's silent, scandalous epidemic

c1ue, I'm not going to explain myself again, since you already have your mind made up no matter what I say. If I told you the sun rises in the morning and sets at night you would argue with me.

[c1ue]

Re: Britain's silent, scandalous epidemic

c1ue, I'm not going to explain myself again, since you already have your mind made up no matter what I say. If I told you the sun rises in the morning and sets at night you would argue with me.

You have your reasons, which you are entitled to.

I don't agree with them, and that too is something I am entitled to.

[shiny!]

Re: Britain's silent, scandalous epidemic

You have your reasons, which you are entitled to.

I don't agree with them, and that too is something I am entitled to.

If I thought the things you've accused me of, e.g., "their arguments were identical to yours:that poor people were morally corrupt, unethical, and irresponsible and thus should not be allowed to pollute society" I would disagree with me, too.

[c1ue]

Re: Britain's silent, scandalous epidemic

If I thought the things you've accused me of, e.g., "their arguments were identical to yours:that poor people were morally corrupt, unethical, and irresponsible and thus should not be allowed to pollute society" I would disagree with me, too.

As can be seen from the thread, the fine line between a genuine deadbeat dad and some other 'burden on taxpayers' which you and others have referred to is impossible to not cross.

Even if you do so yourself, there are many others who will champion your argument as a starting basis for their own prejudices.

[reggie]

Re: Britain's silent, scandalous epidemic

Most of them are responsible parents. Large numbers of them have jobs. This is a real problem and nasty comments don't help.

The public has been trained to "blame the victim". This is a technique frequently employed by the pyschopathic mind. Unfortunately, this is a highly indoctrinated forum.

[flintlock]

Re: Britain's silent, scandalous epidemic

I wonder also how much of its an analytical decision to krank out more kids because its profitable. I'm not saying it's not, I have no idea, rather I don't know if a lot of the people we are talking about think and plan that well. I suspect its just as much a matter of carelessness. How else do you explain people having 'too many' kids who are poor, but not on welfare?
If carelessness and poor decision making is the root cause, then the policies you suggestion would not be a disincentive, and would then impede the goal of 'helping the children'. As far as paying back society, I wonder if these are the best candidates for being competent day-care providers.

I certainly understand your sentiments, and I don't have better ideas, but I suspect the problem is not as easily solved as you suggest, even if there were the political will.

And looking ahead, if one believes that there are major structural problems with the economy (thinking of other itulip threads regarding automation, etc) the problem will only likely get bigger.

I'm in your camp. Its not as if many of these people plan much of anything in their lives. They no more plan on milking welfare than they plan their careers. Does the system make it too easy to be irresponsible? Probably. But like others say, the kids had no role in the matter.

[flintlock]

Re: Britain's silent, scandalous epidemic

Agreed. Think of all the very poor countries with no welfare system to game (e.g. in Africa, Asia, S America) and observe that many very poor citizens have more kids than they can support. There's some other reason(s) why very poor people reproduce so much, I don't believe its a calculated decision to obtain more welfare.

Time. They have time on their hands, nothing to do, and well, stuff happens. Its not like they can afford a ski trip to distract them, or are "not in the mood" because they had a tough day at work. They find the only entertainment they can afford.

[flintlock]

Re: Britain's silent, scandalous epidemic

I am categorically against the requirement to undergo sterilization to get anything.

This is a thinly disguised eugenic attack, and a product of faulty understanding of genetics.

I equally deride the attempt to factionalize the welfare debate - a tactic which the Republican party has been using for decades.

The Food Stamp budget was $82.7 billion in 2010 and fed millions of Americans.

In contrast literally 100 times that was spent saving a few TBTF banks, and 10 times that on Iraq or Afghanistan (pick one).

Agree. Feeding people is not really a big problem. But providing them cradle to grave healthcare......

[flintlock]

Re: Britain's silent, scandalous epidemic

From my experience in the 3rd world I kinda look at families having large numbers of children AS a personal welfare system.

If you have 6-7 kids, maybe you lose 1-2 in childbirth or infancy due to poor access to basic healthcare, poor public health/hygiene, easily preventable conditions in the west, etc, maybe 2-3 of the surviving children are girls who will generally join their husband's family/clan/wantok, leaving 2-3 adult male children who can assist in supporting the parents when they become elderly/infirm/sick.

Having only 1-2 children could be a personal financial disaster by the time you reach your 40's in a country where life expectancy is in the 50's.

Just a thought.

To me....competitive/comparative birth rates are an underappreciated data point......for example....the relative low birth rates of Israel(including folks making Aliyah) compared to the far higher birth rate of Palestinians in the territories is a looming demographic/political/diplomatic disaster for Israel that can't be easily countered. But now I'm going off topic.

I'm pretty sure the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have invested a lot in developing world birth control.

You are correct. It certainly was seen as providing security in my grandparents generation (and before) to have lots of kids. Probably applies more today in lesser developed nations than it does in the big developed nanny state ones today.

I'm not sure if some people realize how many advantages the government gives us today in the US to have kids. Now keep in mind, every parent doesn't send a kid to college, or particularly put a lot of effort or money into raising children. But when you factor in food stamps, tax deductions, Earned income credit, etc, kids don't have to cost that much at all. The real cost is in the time parents spend away from work, dealing with the usual kid problems and activities. That's the part many parents forget to account for. I'm grateful every day I take my kids to the doctor or orthodontist that I am self-employed. I can't imagine the stress on two income homes where both parents have to work 9-5 every day. Especially if you have a serious illness involved. I am able to schedule around appointments and that is worth something.

[flintlock]

Re: Britain's silent, scandalous epidemic

Children going hungry is one of the saddest things in this world. It's bad enough when the cause is some natural disaster that no one could prevent. But when it happens simply for lack of money, it makes me despair for the human race.

On another note, when people start discussing "people" who have children they cannot support, "people" abusing welfare, they mean "women", i.e. "welfare mothers". I'm not accusing anyone here of racism, but oftentimes the image of a welfare mother is that of a black woman in a ghetto. I don't have time to find the study, but some years ago I read that the majority of mothers on welfare are not black women in the "projects", but white women who have been abandoned by their husbands.

It takes TWO to make a baby. If we're going to be pointing fingers at mothers on welfare, let's also point them at irresponsible, absentee fathers while we're at it. The majority of single mothers struggle every day, doing the best they can for their children. Single mothers get blamed for taking welfare so they can stay at home to raise their children. Mothers also get blamed for working and leaving their children in daycare. A mother can be the best mother in the world, but she can't be a father, too, AND work while also staying home. C'mon, let's be fair here! Children also need fathers- responsible, involved fathers.

I want a law that says that men who have children they are not supporting, even one child on welfare, those men get mandatory vasectomies courtesy of the taxpayer.

I don't think for a moment people only think of women when discussing this issue. Its well known how many deadbeat dads this country has. And laws are in effect that come down pretty hard on them, when they can be found. Women only come into the issue more because its usually they who raise the child, and hence receive the welfare benefits. I can personally vouch that men also pay a price for their irresponsible ways. A former employee pays $1100 month in child support to support the three kids he thought he could afford, but found out he couldn't. At least not while trying to screw the Nanny at the same time. He whines, but I remind him they are his responsibility as much as hers. And this guy probably doesn't make $20,000 year today . Talk about serfdom! At least for another 8 or 9 years. So there is a price to be paid, trust me. This guy spent a winter two years ago with no heat in his home. Talking 20-30 degree nights. No hot water. Heating water on a hot plate so he could take a bath. He's not getting off so easy.

[flintlock]

Re: Britain's silent, scandalous epidemic

Yes, but any reason a parent requiring welfare can't suspend their family planning at least until they get back on their feet? Its not like they aren't receiving something in return. See my previous example of a deadbeat dad. Pays more than half his income in child support due to the catastrophe in the building industry. Judged just laughed when he asked to have the support temporarily dropped. Even my buddy wouldn't suggest he "needed" to have more children at the moment. And he knows now he screwed up. So whats the big deal with using birth control if his religion allows it? Most sane people in that situation already are. Its the irresponsible ones that unfortunately need to have this rammed down their throats. We do similar things with drunk drivers and other people who can't play within the rules. Government enacts "Life altering acts" all the time. Try not paying your taxes and see how they alter your life. Drunk drivers lose their driving privileges. At least no one is advocating taking away anyone's sex privileges! Birth control is not sterilization no matter how badly you want to call it the same. Its not necessarily irresponsible to be poor. There are lots of circumstances you could argue lead an innocent person into poverty. What is irresponsible, is to continue to rack up obligations you cannot afford . Thats where the line is drawn. We pass laws all the time that restrict freedom to some point. Usually because of problems that won't fix themselves. Its unfortunate, but its called reality.