# 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:** 12\ **Page:** 16
**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, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bri1600bv-has-shown-me-the-light/506898/301 "2009-08-27T22:08:33Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > 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. You guys really are something else again. How about this - he made an accusation that he did not bother to provide any proof for. Is that clear? You know, like the 8,457,530 other driveby posts? > [@](#): > > Ah. Only interested in smacking him around it is, then. Glad we got that cleared up. That isn’t what I said but you go right ahead and believe whatever you want. Interesting that you suggest I be polite, but you don’t have to. > [@](#): > > Carry on, then. Charles Shaw. Two buck Chuck??? > [@Maeglin](#): > > 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. Certainly far more honest that what you just posted about poor people thruout the ages. Anyway… These days far too many poor people _expect and demand_ that they live in decent housing, can buy essentially whatever food they want, have TVs, cars and computers, have as many children as they want, equal access to health care and whatever else I’ve missed. Its all fine and good for anyone at all to _desire and work towards_ these things, but those who have never contributed to society and never really intend to should not be sitting about whining because the taxpayers won’t buy them cable (and for all I know, we do). There are just too many people of all stations who think they “deserve” this and that, and they are going to have it whether they can afford it or not. All they have a right to is life, liberty and the _pursuit_ of happiness, and they only deserve what they have earned. But somehow the idea of actually earning what you want has gone by the wayside. So, I don’t think anyone should get anything for free, particularly not for procreating which is where most assistance programs are aimed. If you want to live in government housing, you work - pick up trash, mow lawns at City Hall, whatever. You want food stamps, you work - babysit other welfare mothers’ kids, whatever. When I was dirt poor, there was nothing for those who didn’t have children - you found money somehow or you died. At least a “work for welfare” program would have given us a choice… ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bri1600bv-has-shown-me-the-light/506898/302 "2009-08-27T22:15:03Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > 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? Thank you and **tumbledown** for the correction and information. That makes sense. > [@](#): > > 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. You misunderstand. I was pointing out what I viewed as a flaw in the comparison of children born into poverty and crack babies, etc. I don’t think the comparison works. Fetal alcohol syndrome and the like leave permanent damage. Simply being born to parents on welfare doesn’t. There seems to be a worst case scenario undercurrent in your posts. You tend towards the most extreme examples of bad behavior: babies having babies, mothers on welfare turning tricks or at least being more likely than not to have an addiction. This might be what people (including myself) are getting hung up on with regards to your ideas towards welfare. It’s part of why I was suprised by your 20% welfare abusers number. I also think your logic regarding children born to welfare mothers is slightly off. They might be more likely than higher income mothers to have a dependency, but it doesn’t seem to be a majority of them. [My weak ass google fu managed to scavenge some data.](http://www.saprp.org/pm_keyResFind.cfm) > [@](#): > > Although almost 20 percent of welfare recipients report recent use of some illicit drug during the year, only a small minority satisfies internationally accepted diagnostic criteria for drug or alcohol dependence. > Illicit drug use and dependence are more common among women receiving welfare than among women who do not. Drug use is a risk factor for welfare receipt, even after controlling for race, educational attainment, region and other factors. More common than nonwelfare, but a small fraction of 20% isn’t high risk. > [@](#): > > 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. Accidents can happen to the most rational of us, and by virtue of your 80/20 figure I’d say that most people are smart enough. > [@](#): > > 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. The problem here is that making babies a privilege opens a big icky can of worms. How does one legislate who can have babies? I don’t think that’s what you’re suggesting. I’m merely pointing out that hinting at suggesting otherwise is a direction best not gone without the utmost of clarity. > [@](#): > > Pro choice, as much sex ed as possible, yes to Medicaid funding for contraceptives and abortions. Thanks for the answer. > [@](#): > > 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. From what I’ve seen in my failed attempts, programs with drug treatment as part of a welfare to work program have enjoyed more succcess. From my above link. > [@](#): > > Twelve months after enrolling in CASAWORKS, 75% of the women were abstinent from alcohol and illegal drugs compared to 26% when they started the program. > Participants who did not report abstinence, reported significant reductions in number of days of heavy drinking and of illegal drug use. > 40% of the women were employed at least half time after 12 months compared to 16% when they enrolled in the program, and only 13% were still receiving TANF. [QUOTE=curlcoat] 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. [/QUOTE] I found [this paper](http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:IGIIQ7W6JRoJ:https://editorialexpress.com/cgi-bin/conference/download.cgi%3Fdb_name%3Diipf64%26paper_id%3D300+do+children+of+welfare+parents+recieve+welfare+as+adults&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us). Full disclosure. This is a swedish study. Make of that what you will. > [@](#): > > The results in Table 3 suggest that parental welfare is positively correlated with children’s welfare use as young adults, also after we control for a number of household level characteristics, the local unemployment rate at the age of 22, and a set of child characteristics measured at 22. The coefficient in specification (3) suggests that growing up in a household that receives welfare benefits at any point during ages 7–18, is correlated with a 10 percent increase in the probability to receive welfare as a young adult at the age of 22.7 [QUOTE=curlcoat] 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. [/QUOTE] How so? ---
**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 28, 2009, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bri1600bv-has-shown-me-the-light/506898/303 "2009-08-28T03:52:08Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > You guys really are something else again. How about this - he made an accusation that he did not bother to provide any proof for. Is that clear? Yes, it’s completely clear. It should also be clear to you that not bothering to provide the proof in the post is not _prima facie_ evidence that he didn’t have it. > [@curlcoat](#): > > That isn’t what I said but you go right ahead and believe whatever you want. Interesting that you suggest I be polite, but you don’t have to. “Interesting” is where you find it, I suppose. I _could_ defend my interpretation, but I don’t find you compelling enough to take the trouble to do so. My saying that might be blunt, but I don’t think it rises to the level of “impolite.” > [@curlcoat](#): > > Two buck Chuck??? It’s my little joke way of saying “PLONK”. Although, admittedly, I’m showing that I don’t really have the sense to put you on “Ignore”. But disengaging from you, at least in this thread, _would_ be the sensible thing to do. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2009, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bri1600bv-has-shown-me-the-light/506898/304 "2009-08-28T06:16:18Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > You misunderstand. I was pointing out what I viewed as a flaw in the comparison of children born into poverty and crack babies, etc. I don’t think the comparison works. Fetal alcohol syndrome and the like leave permanent damage. Simply being born to parents on welfare doesn’t. I think you misunderstood me. Babies born into poverty have a higher risk for things like FAS. > [@](#): > > There seems to be a worst case scenario undercurrent in your posts. You tend towards the most extreme examples of bad behavior: babies having babies, mothers on welfare turning tricks or at least being more likely than not to have an addiction. It isn’t an undercurrent, it is the point for me. I don’t have any real problem paying for people who are honestly down on their luck, but I do have a big problem with continuing to subsidize things like teens having babies. It appalls me that the government, and at least one person here, thinks it is better that the taxpayer pay to raise a teen’s baby than the teen’s parents. It’s no wonder that people have children that they have to know they cannot afford - no one is held responsible for it! > [@](#): > > The problem here is that making babies a privilege opens a big icky can of worms. How does one legislate who can have babies? It’s very easy. If you want the government to pay to support you, then you cannot go forth and create more people for the government to support. I really don’t understand why it is that people who at least claim to love babies seem to have no problem with women having them when they have no business doing so. And then expecting that we pay for it. > [@](#): > > From what I’ve seen in my failed attempts, programs with drug treatment as part of a welfare to work program have enjoyed more succcess. Well, at least that’s good! > [@](#): > > Full disclosure. This is a swedish study. Make of that what you will. It appears to agree with what I have been saying, that children that are raised on government assistance are more likely to repeat that when they are adults. I didn’t read the whole thing (all those colored squares made it a bit difficult) so I didn’t see if they looked into the effect if any on the age of the child when welfare started and other side issues. > [@](#): > > How so? You mean how so society placing the most importance on the idea of babies but not on the realities? If so, take abortion. Some people will literally risk their lives and/or commit murder to prevent an abortion taking place, yet they have essentially zero interest in what happens to the non-aborted baby after it is born. The government has all kinds of assistance programs for pre-natal, delivery and the first couple of years, but after that their interest in the welfare baby drops like a rock. Even non-welfare babies are more image than reality. How often do babies on TV shows and movies cry for hours, throw their strained peas against the wall, have diarrhea for a couple of days, paint their cribs with their own poop, and all of the other lovely things that can happen with babies? (Unless of course the TV show or movie is about those things) When mommies get together, if they do mention those less than lovely things that babies do, somehow they are “cute” and get downplayed. It isn’t until the children start to become separate individuals that reality sets in, and is reported. It amazes me how most of society views babies as little bundles of joy and bypass the dangers of pregnancy, the expense, the time, the danger to the marriage (if any), the possibility that one or both of the parents won’t be able to bond with the baby, not to mention being abusive or neglectful. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2009, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bri1600bv-has-shown-me-the-light/506898/305 "2009-08-28T07:11:25Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Yes, it’s completely clear. It should also be clear to you that not bothering to provide the proof in the post is not _prima facie_ evidence that he didn’t have it. I never said that he didn’t. I said that he made the accusation without bothering to provide any proof, and I said that doubt that he will bother to do so. This is extremely common here in the Pit, and when it involves me, I like to point it out. I find it hard to believe that you have failed to understand this all this time. ---
**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 28, 2009, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bri1600bv-has-shown-me-the-light/506898/306 "2009-08-28T14:45:06Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > I think you misunderstood me. Babies born into poverty have a higher risk for things like FAS. Today, in the Magical World of curlcoat, we discover that correlation is causation! That’s right, folks–being poor gives your babies FAS. ---
**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 28, 2009, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bri1600bv-has-shown-me-the-light/506898/307 "2009-08-28T17:18:18Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Yes, it’s completely clear. It should also be clear to you that not bothering to provide the proof in the post is not prima facie evidence that he didn’t have it. > > I never said that he didn’t. Really? It sure _looked_ like you said he didn’t. > [@curlcoat](#): > > I said that he made the accusation without bothering to provide any proof, and I said that doubt that he will bother to do so. Yes you did eventually say that. What you said when I first brought it up was:[ > [@](#): > > He says I’m backpedaling, based on nothing at all ]([http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11489759&postcount=293](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11489759&postcount=293)) That looks like a bare assertion that he doesn’t have anything to back it up. If it makes you feel any better, I think he should have come back and pointed out what he viewed as “backpedaling”, and after two days, I’m less inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2009, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bri1600bv-has-shown-me-the-light/506898/308 "2009-08-28T21:29:48Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > It isn’t an undercurrent, it is the point for me. I don’t have any real problem paying for people who are honestly down on their luck, but I do have a big problem with continuing to subsidize things like teens having babies. It appalls me that the government, and at least one person here, thinks it is better that the taxpayer pay to raise a teen’s baby than the teen’s parents. It’s no wonder that people have children that they have to know they cannot afford - no one is held responsible for it! I suspect that this is the essence of our disagreement. I see the 80/20 and think that the system is not perfect, needs some work, but is working well enough. You see it as 20/80 and think that the system is broken. It needs a major overhaul if not outright abandonment. Is that correct? > [@](#): > > It’s very easy. If you want the government to pay to support you, then you cannot go forth and create more people for the government to support. I really don’t understand why it is that people who at least claim to love babies seem to have no problem with women having them when they have no business doing so. And then expecting that we pay for it. I understand what you’re saying but there are problems. Babies are durn cute, which makes it hard to legislate against them. Humans, no matter how smart we are, are stll breeding machines and the method used is lots of fun. Combine that with stupidity and a small dose of bad luck and anyone can be a parent. If that sounds snarky, it’s unintended. Long day. Yadda yadda. I think the best options, as opposed to the gordian knot approach of cutting funding to people who have kids while on welfare, would be to sex ed the fuck right out of children, and increase funding for contraceptive options including surgery for those on government funding who would like the option. That’s probably just my bleeding heart showing though. > [@](#): > > It appears to agree with what I have been saying, that children that are raised on government assistance are more likely to repeat that when they are adults. I didn’t read the whole thing (all those colored squares made it a bit difficult) so I didn’t see if they looked into the effect if any on the age of the child when welfare started and other side issues. Indeed, but only ten percent. That’s a small number and in my opinion not one that makes recidivism amongst children of welfare parents a concern. > [@](#): > > You mean how so society placing the most importance on the idea of babies but not on the realities? If so, take abortion. Some people will literally risk their lives and/or commit murder to prevent an abortion taking place, yet they have essentially zero interest in what happens to the non-aborted baby after it is born. The government has all kinds of assistance programs for pre-natal, delivery and the first couple of years, but after that their interest in the welfare baby drops like a rock. I’m pretty sure that the day care runs well into childhood, and there are insurance programs available for children (and children alone) of low income families. I’m curious as to what your opinions of government programs for children/young adults are. You’re saying that the government places the importance on the infants or even just the birth of, but not as much on children and older. Do you think the government should expand programs to help children as much as babies, lessen the support for low income children (not necessarily those born to parents on welfare), or something else? I’ll apologize again for continuing to ask questions. If nothing else, this thread will give you posts to link back to should someone misconstrue your beliefs. > [@](#): > > Even non-welfare babies are more image than reality. How often do babies on TV shows and movies cry for hours, throw their strained peas against the wall, have diarrhea for a couple of days, paint their cribs with their own poop, and all of the other lovely things that can happen with babies? (Unless of course the TV show or movie is about those things) When mommies get together, if they do mention those less than lovely things that babies do, somehow they are “cute” and get downplayed. It isn’t until the children start to become separate individuals that reality sets in, and is reported. I think this has to do with that new baby smell. Creates a form of temporary and selective anmesia where the aches, pains, sleepless nights, exciting new colors and smells of human excrement, and the like are forgotten. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2009, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bri1600bv-has-shown-me-the-light/506898/309 "2009-08-28T23:37:49Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > I suspect that this is the essence of our disagreement. I see the 80/20 and think that the system is not perfect, needs some work, but is working well enough. You see it as 20/80 and think that the system is broken. It needs a major overhaul if not outright abandonment. Is that correct? Partially. I think the system needs a major overhaul, but not simply because of that 20%. I look beyond any year’s worth of “20 percenters” and see how children that grow up on welfare are more likely to do so as adults, how much more they cost per person than the 80%, the higher likelihood of crime and abuse, etc. > [@](#): > > I understand what you’re saying but there are problems. Babies are durn cute, which makes it hard to legislate against them. Humans, no matter how smart we are, are stll breeding machines and the method used is lots of fun. Combine that with stupidity and a small dose of bad luck and anyone can be a parent. If that sounds snarky, it’s unintended. Long day. Yadda yadda. I would hope that in the 21st century, humans are far more than “breeding machines” We are expected to control all of our other hormonal, instinctive and addictive impulses, but not baby making because they are so “durn cute”? > [@](#): > > I think the best options, as opposed to the gordian knot approach of cutting funding to people who have kids while on welfare, would be to sex ed the fuck right out of children, and increase funding for contraceptive options including surgery for those on government funding who would like the option. That’s probably just my bleeding heart showing though. While that would probably help, it isn’t going to do anything for those girls/women who choose to have babies they cannot afford. Not to mention the heavy religious negative response to any mention of sex ed. > [@](#): > > Indeed, but only ten percent. That’s a small number and in my opinion not one that makes recidivism amongst children of welfare parents a concern. When do you think it should be a concern? Remember, it’s cumulative - not to mention that study was from a different country and things could be far worse here. > [@](#): > > Do you think the government should expand programs to help children as much as babies, lessen the support for low income children (not necessarily those born to parents on welfare), or something else? I think the government should quit paying for all prenatal, delivery and the first two years of a baby’s life and so quit making it easier for women who cannot afford children to have babies that grow into children. > [@](#): > > I’ll apologize again for continuing to ask questions. Why do you keep saying that? Have I ever indicated that I have a problem with questions? 😕 > [@](#): > > I think this has to do with that new baby smell. Creates a form of temporary and selective anmesia where the aches, pains, sleepless nights, exciting new colors and smells of human excrement, and the like are forgotten. Again, I would hope that humans these days are capable of rising above their instinctive responses and seeing things as they really are. ---
**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 29, 2009, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bri1600bv-has-shown-me-the-light/506898/310 "2009-08-29T01:02:05Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > I think this has to do with that new baby smell. Creates a form of temporary and selective anmesia where the aches, pains, sleepless nights, exciting new colors and smells of human excrement, and the like are forgotten. And lordy, I get the same way with my cats. I don’t talk about litter boxes and vomiting and diarrhea and cat breath. I talk about what the funny thing was that Albert did ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2009, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bri1600bv-has-shown-me-the-light/506898/311 "2009-08-29T01:22:03Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Why do you keep saying that? Have I ever indicated that I have a problem with questions? 😕 Just being polite. Having grown up as the “why?” kid has taught me that sometimes there can be too many questions. I appreciate the time you’re taking to answer and have this discussion. Hopefully I’ll have a more substantive response to your post tommorow. Brainy no worky past dark.😉 ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2009, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bri1600bv-has-shown-me-the-light/506898/312 "2009-08-29T03:16:13Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > And lordy, I get the same way with my cats. I don’t talk about litter boxes and vomiting and diarrhea and cat breath. I talk about what the funny thing was that Albert did People who are into dogsports live and breathe dogs, but we don’t go about talking about worms, injuries, etc except when we are in that environment. People who don’t like dogs? We don’t talk dogs to them at all. And the most important thing we don’t do? We don’t downplay the time, work, expense and gross stuff that having dogs, particularly those doing sports, involves. Why do people do that about babies? Aren’t they supposed to be more important? > [@Harborwolf](#): > > Just being polite. Having grown up as the “why?” kid has taught me that sometimes there can be too many questions. I appreciate the time you’re taking to answer and have this discussion. Hopefully I’ll have a more substantive response to your post tommorow. Brainy no worky past dark. Oh, OK. For some reason, my time on this board makes me suspicious… 🙂 No rush regarding a response. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bri1600bv-has-shown-me-the-light/506898.md?page=15)