# Bri1600BV Has Shown Me The Light! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 18, 2009, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bri1600bv-has-shown-me-the-light/506898 "2009-08-18T23:43:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bri1600bv-has-shown-me-the-light/506898/281 "2009-08-26T01:03:14Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > By that reasoning, a child of migrant workers, a child who picked crops didn’t even learn English until he was 12 couldn’t possibly [make anything of himself](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32513816/ns/technology_and_science-space/). But he’s working for NASA so he’s still leeching off our tax dollars!! ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bri1600bv-has-shown-me-the-light/506898/282 "2009-08-26T01:46:11Z")
> [@LeeshaJoy](#): > > In the sense that they are both on government assistance, yes. That’s sad. > [@](#): > > (And please stop referring to it as “taking **their** SS.” It’s not the same money that they paid into the system, and you damn well know it.) I refer to it as their SS because that is what it is - their SS account. The fact that it doesn’t have their particular money in it doesn’t mean that the government isn’t keeping track of how much each person puts in and when they retire/become disabled. Are you not old enough to get your annual statement from them, about your account? > [@Harborwolf](#): > > Upon re-reading the thread, I’ll say it’s because of what appears to be the low opinion you seem to have for “the poor” or those living off our tax dollars. You should read it again. I have a low opinion of those who _choose_ to live off of our tax dollars. > [@](#): > > What percentage of those on welfare do you think are abusing the system and if you’d be so kind, define the abuse. As I said earlier, in this state I think it is at least 20% because deciding to live off of the various welfare programs is abuse of the system. > [@](#): > > Can I give a tentative no to this question? I’d not have a problem if she was using the system as intended much in the same way I’d have no problem with a retired worker doing the same. I think that is the whole problem here - different ideas of what the different welfare programs are intended for. Do you feel that a minor child having and keeping a baby is what the welfare system is supposed to be covering? How about if she goes ahead and has another baby every three years or so? And/or if she doesn’t finish high school, get a GED or go to trade school? Never works? And then when her eldest daughter has her first child at 15? This is not what was originally intended and these folks are definitely not using it as a safety net. > [@](#): > > I would have a problem with a person abusing the welfare system much in the same way (and I honestly mean this as no dig at you. Merely an example of potential abuse of the system so as to properly compare apples to apples) I’d have a problem with a person doctor shopping in order to get themselves on SSDI for “chronic pain” or an “anxiety disorder.” I’m not sure that would work since it takes far more than one doctor to qualify for SSDI! It’s certainly possible to game the SSDI system, but I don’t think it is as easy to do. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bri1600bv-has-shown-me-the-light/506898/283 "2009-08-26T02:28:59Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > As I said earlier, in this state I think it is at least 20% because deciding to live off of the various welfare programs is abuse of the system. I only ask because you’ve expressed discomfort with people having more than one vehicle, having internet access, etc. and the thread is about feeding those on assistance the aforementioned gruel. I was wondering if there were any other things about welfare beyond simply spending an extended period of time on it that (to use the colloquialism)knotted your knickers. > [@](#): > > I think that is the whole problem here - different ideas of what the different welfare programs are intended for. Actually, I’m not so sure. How do you feel about the 80% that are not living off the system? > [@](#): > > Do you feel that a minor child having and keeping a baby is what the welfare system is supposed to be covering? Depends on what the family situation regarding her parents is, but yes. > [@](#): > > How about if she goes ahead and has another baby every three years or so? This is where things get interesting. I’m going to assume you’re thinking along the welfare queen train of thought and that our mother in question is merely “popping them out” with little regard to economic circumstance. I would say that I don’t think that welfare should cover her, but how does one regulate against such activities? Do we poll parents for intent to separate the bad parents from parents with bad luck? Do we put a baby cap on the welfare programs? Do we accept that helping the 80% is worth tolerating the 20% sponges? > [@](#): > > And/or if she doesn’t finish high school, get a GED or go to trade school? Never works? And then when her eldest daughter has her first child at 15? This is not what was originally intended and these folks are definitely not using it as a safety net. Again, we find ourselves in the precarious position of putting strings on the proverbial purse. You can put an education requirement for continued benefits, but how then does our welfare queen take care of the child during education hours? Children, much like geese, can be troublesome. Putting a graduation cap on benefits would put those with children (well intentioned or welfare queens) at a disadvantage. Do you think the system could be altered to cut back on abuse? How so? > [@](#): > > I’m not sure that would work since it takes far more than one doctor to qualify for SSDI! It’s certainly possible to game the SSDI system, but I don’t think it is as easy to do. I’m not at all knowledgable in the ins and outs of SSDI. I was simply putting the scenarios on a level field for the purposes of clarity. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bri1600bv-has-shown-me-the-light/506898/284 "2009-08-26T04:57:52Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > I only ask because you’ve expressed discomfort with people having more than one vehicle, having internet access, etc. and the thread is about feeding those on assistance the aforementioned gruel. I thought it was about pitting **Bri1600BV**. Anyway, I haven’t expressed discomfort about those things, I have asked questions about them and stated that when I was poor, I didn’t own those things and if I had, I’d have sold them in order to buy food/gas/whatever. It simply appears to me that poor people these days expect to have more than they did 30-40 years ago when I was poor. > [@](#): > > Actually, I’m not so sure. How do you feel about the 80% that are not living off the system? Technically, anyone on welfare is living off the system. The 80% are those who I don’t think intend to continue to do it for very long, for as short a time as possible. These are the folks that don’t make excuses, they just get to work on taking care of themselves. > [@](#): > > Depends on what the family situation regarding her parents is, but yes. You think welfare is intended to support children having children? What does the family situation have to do with it? > [@](#): > > I would say that I don’t think that welfare should cover her, but how does one regulate against such activities? It’s very simple - you don’t pay for any babies that are born while their mother is on welfare. The bleeding hearts freak out at that suggestion because it is “cruel and inhuman” to the “innocent babies”, but really - how humane is it to raise a baby while one is living on welfare to begin with? Or to birth one addicted to crack, suffering from fetal alcohol syndrome, infected with AIDs? The government is paying women to have babies like this - how is that a good thing? > [@](#): > > Do we accept that helping the 80% is worth tolerating the 20% sponges? No. That 20% not only costs us for themselves, they also create a new generation of sponges. We need to go back to some sort of welfare to work program and quit listening to the excuses. > [@](#): > > Again, we find ourselves in the precarious position of putting strings on the proverbial purse. What’s wrong with that? > [@](#): > > You can put an education requirement for continued benefits, but how then does our welfare queen take care of the child during education hours? She finds someone to watch them. It cannot be true that the average welfare mother is with her children 24/7, so if she can get away from them now, she can do it to get an education. > [@](#): > > Putting a graduation cap on benefits would put those with children (well intentioned or welfare queens) at a disadvantage. So the taxpayer should continue to pay out for generations simply because these women think they have the right to have multiple children they cannot afford? Children who will most likely end up being some sort of drain on society themselves? “Having children” has got to stop as an excuse for not being able to work, not being able to go to school, not being able to do anything but live on welfare. > [@](#): > > I’m not at all knowledgable in the ins and outs of SSDI. I was simply putting the scenarios on a level field for the purposes of clarity. Despite what many here would like to think, it is far easier to get the various welfare programs to pay you than it is to get your SS early. Part of the problem is that the federal definition of “disabled” is not “unable to work at any job”. So those who want to get on SSDI are generally having to hit a moving target, and as far as I can tell from the scores of people I’ve talked to, the fed denies all but the most obvious cases on the first application. Now, I’m sure there must be some people gaming the SSDI system - well, I know one who I think is - but it would take quite a bit of work to do so. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bri1600bv-has-shown-me-the-light/506898/285 "2009-08-26T05:23:40Z")
> [@athelas](#): > > Step 1: Take part of everyone’s salaries. > Step 2: After they’re 65, start giving somewhat less money back to them. > Step 3: Say “See? You’re dependent on me giving your money back! So stop complaining about having to _give_ me money!” > Step 4: ??? > Step 5: Profit! Umm, Step 1?: How much would that be per month?\* Step 2?: How much would that be per month? Step 2a: Simple math. Step 2b: Take the disparity between retirement age and life expectancy and assuming a high (and most likely unrealistic) rate of return on investment had Step 1 not occurred and assume the money in Step 1 had actually been invested, do more simple math. Step 3 (New): Say “See? It’s extremely likely that you’ll get your money back, and more! So stop complaining about having to pay for other folks SS (et al.)!” Step 4 (New): Make some changes to the current system. (Like, say, removing the FICA cap?) Step 5 (New): Less whining?! But since I’m not a tax thingy guy what do I know? CMC fnord! \* > [@](#): > > The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax is a United States payroll (or employment) tax imposed by the federal government on both employees and employers to fund Social Security and Medicare—federal programs that provide benefits for retirees, the disabled, and children of deceased workers. Social Security benefits include old-age, survivors, and disability insurance (OASDI); Medicare provides hospital insurance benefits. The amount that one pays in payroll taxes throughout one’s working career is indirectly tied to the social security benefits annuity that one receives as a retiree. This has led some to claim that the payroll tax is not a tax because its collection is tied to a benefit. The United States Supreme Court decided in Flemming v. Nestor (1960) that no one has an accrued property right to benefits from Social Security. … > … For 2008, the employee’s share of the Social Security portion of the tax is 6.2% of gross compensation up to a limit of $102,000 of compensation (resulting in a maximum of $6,324.00 in tax). For 2009, the employee’s share is 6.2% of gross compensation up to a limit of $106,800 of compensation (resulting in a maximum tax of $6,621.60). This limit, known as the Social Security Wage Base, goes up each year based on average national wages and, in general, at a faster rate than the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). The employee’s share of the Medicare portion is 1.45% of wages with no limit. The employer is also liable for separate 6.2% and 1.45% Social Security and Medicare taxes, respectively, making the total Social Security tax 12.4% and the total Medicare tax 2.9% of wages. (Self-employed people are responsible for the entire FICA percentage of 15.3% … ) …[RIGHT][CITE](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Insurance_Contributions_Act_tax)[/RIGHT] ---
**Author:** ![MissTake](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/misstake/32/3189_2.png) [@MissTake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MissTake)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bri1600bv-has-shown-me-the-light/506898/286 "2009-08-26T14:22:25Z")
And remember, there are different forms of Social Security. RSDI (Retirement, Survivors, Disability Insurance) and SSI (Supplemental Security Income). RSDI is based on what you’ve paid in (FICA), SSI fills the gaps. Once RSDI ends, you end up total SSI which is essentially federal welfare. [SSI](http://www.ssa.gov/ssi/) If I get hit by a bus, RSDI will kick in for X many years, then as what I paid in to FICA is used, it will first be partially supplemented by SSI (at a lower amount than the full RSDI), then I would eventually be straight SSI. RSDI can be garnished. RSDI can be levied. SSI cannot be touched. It is federal welfare, no matter how you look at it. ---
**Author:** ![tacoloco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tacoloco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tacoloco)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bri1600bv-has-shown-me-the-light/506898/287 "2009-08-26T14:36:30Z")
That sound you hear is the sound of Curlcoat furiously backpedalling. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bri1600bv-has-shown-me-the-light/506898/288 "2009-08-26T21:25:57Z")
> [@tacoloco](#): > > That sound you hear is the sound of Curlcoat furiously backpedalling. What have you misunderstood that makes you think that? ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bri1600bv-has-shown-me-the-light/506898/289 "2009-08-26T21:31:20Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > You think welfare is intended to support children having children? What does the family situation have to do with it? The phrase children having children puts us in a rather interesting place. I say that it depends on the family situation because, if we’re going by your later statement as our age gauge, the child having the child is aged 15 which places her squarely as a minor and under her parents care. Should she somehow manage to come from a home life screwed up enough for a judge to emancipate a pregnant fifteen year old, I’d think welfare is in order. I don’t think it was intended specifically for that purpose, but I don’t see how it would be prohibited. > [@](#): > > It’s very simple - you don’t pay for any babies that are born while their mother is on welfare. The bleeding hearts freak out at that suggestion because it is “cruel and inhuman” to the “innocent babies”, but really - how humane is it to raise a baby while one is living on welfare to begin with? Or to birth one addicted to crack, suffering from fetal alcohol syndrome, infected with AIDs? The government is paying women to have babies like this - how is that a good thing? This paragraph seems rather harsh. Probably just the comparison between children born to parents on welfare and children born addicted to crack, born brain damaged, or born with a nasty and potentially fatal virus. Of course, the difference is that children born to parents on welfare can have the circumstances of their life changed (parents get jobs, more money, and the like) whereas the crack baby can only look forward to a job hosting a show on fox news. I think your comparison in this case needs work. And if I may ask more questions, what percentage of people in that 80% do you think will have kids during their time on welfare? Accidents happen. People may be pregnant before they fall on hard times. Is it only the 20% that breed while on welfare? My other question (gotta have one since I pluralized the word and all) is about abortion/sex ed/contraceptives, and you can tell me to stuff it if you don’t feel like answering. I’m asking because of your views on people having kids while on welfare simply to get an idea on where you stand. Are you for or against abortion, relatively detailed sex ed in schools vs. abstinence only, medicaid funding for contraceptives/abortions given that this is about those on welfare? Your answer isn’t necessary if you don’t want to get into it but it would be appreciated. > [@](#): > > No. That 20% not only costs us for themselves, they also create a new generation of sponges. We need to go back to some sort of welfare to work program and quit listening to the excuses. According to wiki, the federal program expired in 2004 but I think that some states do have provisions in place. If anyone can find any info on this, it’d be appreciated as my google fu has abandoned me. Do you think that a majority of kids born to sponges will grow up to continue life as a sponge? > [@](#): > > What’s wrong with that? Nothing really, but the implementation of such things can be troublesome. > [@](#): > > She finds someone to watch them. It cannot be true that the average welfare mother is with her children 24/7, so if she can get away from them now, she can do it to get an education. If we’re going to continue with our emancipated minor mother, her family is likely right out as possible baby sitters. Does she leave the kid/s to go to work or get an education? If she can’t find or can’t trust her friends, what does she do? I think the government does assist on day care. Is that kosher for you? > [@](#): > > So the taxpayer should continue to pay out for generations simply because these women think they have the right to have multiple children they cannot afford? Children who will most likely end up being some sort of drain on society themselves? “Having children” has got to stop as an excuse for not being able to work, not being able to go to school, not being able to do anything but live on welfare. Not at all. I think we just have different views on how the system is performing. I feel that, while not ideal, the 20% sponge rate is tolerable to help the 80%. It would be better to remove that 20%, but not by changing things to the detriment of the 80% who are using the system properly. Am I correct in saying you disagree with this statement? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2009, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bri1600bv-has-shown-me-the-light/506898/290 "2009-08-26T23:03:40Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > What have you misunderstood that makes you think that? ISTM that if **tacoloco** actually misunderstood something in your posts, he would be unaware of doing so. That said, it might be interesting to have **tacoloco** quote what you have posted and point out the bits that strike him as constituting backpedaling. If you are really interested in learning why he made the remark, asking him to do that is probably a more polite way of finding out. If you’re really only interested in smacking him around with an accusation that he has “misunderstood” your posts, well, carry on, I guess. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bri1600bv-has-shown-me-the-light/506898/291 "2009-08-27T00:41:16Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > If you’re really only interested in smacking him around with an accusation that he has “misunderstood” your posts, well, carry on, I guess. Did you torture earthworms in a past life so that in this one you’re doomed to try to wrangle curlcoat? ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bri1600bv-has-shown-me-the-light/506898/292 "2009-08-27T05:58:34Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > The phrase children having children puts us in a rather interesting place. I say that it depends on the family situation because, if we’re going by your later statement as our age gauge, the child having the child is aged 15 which places her squarely as a minor and under her parents care. Should she somehow manage to come from a home life screwed up enough for a judge to emancipate a pregnant fifteen year old, I’d think welfare is in order. I don’t think it was intended specifically for that purpose, but I don’t see how it would be prohibited. This is the thing. Apparently it isn’t at all necessary for the girl to be living apart from her parent(s), much less be officially emancipated. Why is the government more responsible for this girl and her baby than her parents? > [@](#): > > This paragraph seems rather harsh. Probably just the comparison between children born to parents on welfare and children born addicted to crack, born brain damaged, or born with a nasty and potentially fatal virus. Of course, the difference is that children born to parents on welfare can have the circumstances of their life changed (parents get jobs, more money, and the like) whereas the crack baby can only look forward to a job hosting a show on fox news. I think your comparison in this case needs work. I couldn’t find any cites regarding babies born on welfare overall, but there are some out there regarding the likelihood of babies born to teenage mothers on welfare suffering from things like that. The logic is there as well - a mother who is living on welfare, if she has been doing it for very long, most likely has an alcohol or drug abuse problem, and if she is turning tricks to make money she is more likely to have AIDs. > [@](#): > > And if I may ask more questions, what percentage of people in that 80% do you think will have kids during their time on welfare? Accidents happen. People may be pregnant before they fall on hard times. Is it only the 20% that breed while on welfare? I like to believe that most people are intelligent enough and rational enough to not have a child(ren) at a time when they obviously cannot afford to raise them, but history proves that to be foolish. And not only do these folks go ahead and have these babies, society supports them by paying for it, and by the general belief that everyone has a right to have children, no matter how dirt poor, drug addicted or abusive they are. > [@](#): > > Are you for or against abortion, relatively detailed sex ed in schools vs. abstinence only, medicaid funding for contraceptives/abortions given that this is about those on welfare? Pro choice, as much sex ed as possible, yes to Medicaid funding for contraceptives and abortions. > [@](#): > > According to wiki, the federal program expired in 2004 but I think that some states do have provisions in place. If anyone can find any info on this, it’d be appreciated as my google fu has abandoned me. Mine did too, tho I am less likely to have the patience to follow things around since it takes so long to do it. I think you are right that some states have a sort of welfare to work program going on, but they seem to be having trouble with those that don’t think that the mothers of young children should be forced to work, as well as the problem with those addicted to drugs. > [@](#): > > Do you think that a majority of kids born to sponges will grow up to continue life as a sponge? Yes, I do think that. I can’t seem to find any indication that anyone has had a look at it, but if nothing else, children tend to repeat what they grew up with. > [@](#): > > If we’re going to continue with our emancipated minor mother, her family is likely right out as possible baby sitters. I really doubt that there are many emancipated minors living on welfare, without being at least in foster care. > [@](#): > > Does she leave the kid/s to go to work or get an education? If she can’t find or can’t trust her friends, what does she do? I think the government does assist on day care. Is that kosher for you? Not really, but it appears to be a necessary evil. An outgrowth of society placing the most importance on the idea of babies but not on the realities. > [@](#): > > Not at all. I think we just have different views on how the system is performing. I feel that, while not ideal, the 20% sponge rate is tolerable to help the 80%. It would be better to remove that 20%, but not by changing things to the detriment of the 80% who are using the system properly. Am I correct in saying you disagree with this statement? I am not really sure. It would depend on what you think a detriment would be. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bri1600bv-has-shown-me-the-light/506898/293 "2009-08-27T06:00:51Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > ISTM that if **tacoloco** actually misunderstood something in your posts, he would be unaware of doing so. That said, it might be interesting to have **tacoloco** quote what you have posted and point out the bits that strike him as constituting backpedaling. If you are really interested in learning why he made the remark, asking him to do that is probably a more polite way of finding out. > > If you’re really only interested in smacking him around with an accusation that he has “misunderstood” your posts, well, carry on, I guess. Oh please. He says I’m backpedaling, based on nothing at all, and you think I should call him out politely? Besides, I’m well aware that he will do nothing of the sort. I’ve asked for people to prove all kinds of things that they think I’ve said and so far - nada. ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bri1600bv-has-shown-me-the-light/506898/294 "2009-08-27T06:06:54Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > The phrase children having children puts us in a rather interesting place. I say that it depends on the family situation because, if we’re going by your later statement as our age gauge, the child having the child is aged 15 which places her squarely as a minor and under her parents care. Should she somehow manage to come from a home life screwed up enough for a judge to emancipate a pregnant fifteen year old, I’d think welfare is in order. I don’t think it was intended specifically for that purpose, but I don’t see how it would be prohibited. While a 15 year old is still under their parents’ care, the parents are under no legal obligation to financially support the grandchild that 15 year old parents. They also don’t automatically assume legal custody nor responsibility in other regards for that grandchild. Parenthood automatically emancipates/empowers in important ways, for instance, a minor who is pregnant is the sole arbiter of her obstetric care, just as an adult woman would be. A minor who maintains custody of their own child is similarly the ultimate giver of consent for medical procedures for their child. They also have the ultimate responsibility to provide food, clothing, shelter and medical care for their child, as needed. And _that_ is why minors who are the custodial parents of their own children are eligible for public assistance benefits just like parents who are of/over the age of majority – in order to ensure that the child is not materially neglected and so that there isn’t a penumbra of people – the parents of procreating minors – who become financially responsible for a child that is not theirs and over whom they have no legal authority. I could elaborate at this point on my perspective of a person who has no children blithely suggesting that anyone who becomes pregnant under less than ideal financial or age-related circumstances, should either terminate the pregnancy or simply give the child away, (also recommended for children with illnesses, as demonstrated in the most cold-hearted thing I’ve read on these boards, right here in this thread) as if these are simple things, no different from throwing away a tattered shirt. The nihilism of this perspective is pretty appalling to me, and I’m a champion cynic. But that gets too close to directly addressing that person, and I’ve vowed not to do that. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bri1600bv-has-shown-me-the-light/506898/295 "2009-08-27T06:59:49Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Oh please. He says I’m backpedaling, based on nothing at all, and you think I should call him out politely? Yes, I do. I’m not in a position to assess whether his assertion is based on nothing or something, since I’m finding most of your posts to be tldr material, but if you really want to know what left him feeling comfortable enough to level the accusation (and you _did_ ask, however aggressively), I think you should ask him politely. Tends to work for me, even in the Pit. Which, come to think of it, might be relevant to your second paragraph: > [@curlcoat](#): > > Besides, I’m well aware that he will do nothing of the sort. I’ve asked for people to prove all kinds of things that they think I’ve said and so far - nada. Cheers! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bri1600bv-has-shown-me-the-light/506898/296 "2009-08-27T14:20:36Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > She finds someone to watch them. It cannot be true that the average welfare mother is with her children 24/7, so if she can get away from them now, she can do it to get an education. Ah yes, another glimpse into the Magical World of curlcoat, where childcare is cheap and plentiful, and finding someone to babysit for one hour is the same as finding someone to babysit for eight or more hours. I can’t wait until the day your brain explodes from all the stupidity and ignorance, leaving you in a permanent vegetative state. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bri1600bv-has-shown-me-the-light/506898/297 "2009-08-27T19:00:28Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#): > > And _that_ is why minors who are the custodial parents of their own children are eligible for public assistance benefits just like parents who are of/over the age of majority – in order to ensure that the child is not materially neglected and so that there isn’t a penumbra of people – the parents of procreating minors – who become financially responsible for a child that is not theirs and over whom they have no legal authority. I take it then, you see no problem with parents abdicating their responsibility to their children simply because there is government assistance their underage child can get? It is better for a penumbra of strangers (the taxpayers) to become financially responsible for children that are not theirs and over whom they have no legal authority, rather than the parents that had and raised that underage mother? > [@](#): > > I could elaborate at this point on my perspective of a person who has no children blithely suggesting that anyone who becomes pregnant under less than ideal financial or age-related circumstances, should either terminate the pregnancy or simply give the child away, (also recommended for children with illnesses, as demonstrated in the most cold-hearted thing I’ve read on these boards, right here in this thread) as if these are simple things, no different from throwing away a tattered shirt. The nihilism of this perspective is pretty appalling to me, and I’m a champion cynic. But that gets too close to directly addressing that person, and I’ve vowed not to do that. Snort. Perhaps if you actually read what I write, you wouldn’t end up with these ass-umptions. Unless that is the intent? I don’t agree with your “baybees are all important” stance, so you have to twist things around? What I actually said was that those women who become pregnant while on welfare (far from “less than ideal financial circumstances”) or those 12-15 year olds (far from “less than ideal age-related circumstances”) would better serve themselves, the potential baby and society by either aborting or giving the baby up for adoption. Simply because you have emotional issues with those choices doesn’t mean that the women who make responsible, rather than emotional, choices are cold-hearted nihilists. But then, it’s no fun and it doesn’t serve your agenda to stay on point, does it? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bri1600bv-has-shown-me-the-light/506898/298 "2009-08-27T19:06:05Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Yes, I do. I’m not in a position to assess whether his assertion is based on nothing or something, Sure you are - there was nothing in his post to indicate even what he thought I was back pedaling about, much less any proof. It was simply another driveby insult made by someone who cannot come up with any intelligent answer to my posts. And no, I don’t really care about his answer - I do that merely to point out how many times people say things like that when they cannot back it up. For the amusement factor. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bri1600bv-has-shown-me-the-light/506898/299 "2009-08-27T19:43:46Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by **kaylasdad99** > > Yes, I do. I’m not in a position to assess whether his assertion is based on nothing or something, > > Sure you are - there was nothing in his post to indicate even what he thought I was back pedaling about, much less any proof. It was simply another driveby insult made by someone who cannot come up with any intelligent answer to my posts. Just because it’s not in his post doesn’t mean he doesn’t have anything. It simply means that he didn’t put in his post. > [@curlcoat](#): > > And no, I don’t really care about his answer - I do that merely to point out how many times people say things like that when they cannot back it up. For the amusement factor. Ah. Only interested in smacking him around it is, then. Glad we got that cleared up. Carry on, then. Charles Shaw. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bri1600bv-has-shown-me-the-light/506898/300 "2009-08-27T20:15:01Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > It simply appears to me that poor people these days expect to have more than they did 30-40 years ago when I was poor. A poor person in the Roman Empire lived in a highly flammable, squalid house and might have to abandon a newborn baby in the street. His only meal of the day came after he earned a penny for going to the circus. A poor person in 19th century England probably did some time in Newgate. A poor person in the 60s went to Viet Nam. So tell us, what should poor people expect to have today? What would be a reasonable and rationally defensible standard of living? I would prefer a standard other than “what I went through in the 70s”. But if you did answer that way, at least it would be honest. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bri1600bv-has-shown-me-the-light/506898.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bri1600bv-has-shown-me-the-light/506898.md?page=16)