Oh, they creep me out too, but they don’t piss me off, at least not as much as these people do.
You know, I’m the last person on earth who’s going to say “cut off her money”. If cutting off her money **guaranteed ** that she wouldn’t have any more kids I’d be all for it, but it doesn’t. And no matter how much of an ass she is, her kids deserve to eat.
We could of course get into a huge debate about welfare reform, (and for the record, IMO it’s badly broken, and I’d much prefer that welfare pay for daycare and / or education, rather than encouraging people to sit around on their asses), but it would be irrelevant to the details of this particular case.
The details of this particular case are, of course, that she’s a feckless asshole. Pretending anything else does **no one ** any favors. To assert that poor people can’t help themselves from being feckless assholes is the single most insulting thing said in this thread.
ETA that I did about eight other things between beginning this post and actually hitting “submit”, so sorry I missed your post, Quoth. I didn’t think you actually meant it to be insulting, but it’s that kind of condescension that makes people do things like have 18 freakin’ kids. After all, no one expects better of them. :rolleyes:
Nah, they don’t piss me off either. This woman does, perhaps because I have so many relatives like her and have seen this kind of thing firsthand.
Not to nitpick, but in the cases you mentioned the recipient usually only has their tuition paid for. Still quite a lot, to be sure.
Joshua, 17; John David, 15; Janna, 15; Jill, 14; Jessa, 12; Jinger, 11; Joseph, 10; Josiah, 9; Joy-Anna, 8; Jeremiah, 6; Jedidiah, 6; Jason, 5; James, 4; Justin, 2; Jackson Levi, 1; and now Johannah.
None of those seems particularly stupid to me.
I happen to disagree, but I have a bug up my ass about names and the spelling and use thereof.
Jinger? Johannah AND Joy-Anna? Jedidiah, while not TOO bad, is pretty outdated.
But JINGER?!?!
ETA: Considering how cruel kids can be, it may just be a blessing that this bunch is homeschooled.
This is the stupidest, most hateful thing I’ve ever seen you post PunditLisa. That’s not saying much because I usually find you to be reasonable and even-handed.
Please tell me I’m wrong but it seems to me that you are equating poor with stupid with let them suffer and die. You are punishing the children for the sins of the mother and have written them (and, by extension) all of the poor children currently living on welfare as hopeless cases needing ‘weeding out’.
Hateful and stupid and demonstrably false to boot.
Come on, “Jinger”? 
The boys’ names are all pretty normal; no issue there. It’s the girls’ names that seem really forced. What’s weird is that there are a number of easy/obvious J-names they could have used: Joann, Jennifer, Jan, Joy, Jo, Jessica, Jena. Seems like you’d exhaust those before moving onto the weird spellings and variations.
That makes sense at first, but realistically… I doubt what they think society expects of them has much bearing on their actions… :dubious:
But then thats the thing, sort of… Any society can be divided into countless sub-societies each with somewhat different values, hopes, and expectations on certain aspects of life. Of course they all overlap on lots of things too, and thats what allows us to also talk of one society, on a national level. yadaa yadaa yadaa…
What I mean is if members of a certain social group have little or no hope of pursuing a career and amassing a ton of possessions or traveling the world or whatever, then naturally they’re going to have a different attitude towards things like having lots of children very early… Something that people with aspirations of travel or a good career would see as limiting their ability to do so…
That’s not neccesarily to say such large families are planned, but it might explain a slightly diminished motivation to be extra extra extra careful…
Think of the how the vast majority of first world countries now (or soon will) have aging populations because their citizens are choosing to have fewer children. Why? Because they enjoy more comfort and opportunity (thanks, Malacandra) than ever before. Except for the ones that don’t…
If you wanted it, you could absolutely get a great college education on that sort of scholarship, particularly since there are probably other sources of funding available to help you with books and room and board or such. Work study programs, for example. I think state universities provide access that’s about as equal as possible to everybody.
Exactly.
Fine, I can get with that.
But whats the solution? I’m all about tryin’ to understand the bigger picture…
PunditLisa, “people we’d like to weed out” sounds like a Final Solution-type approach to me :dubious:
Jinger. Seriously.
(Add Jennifer Danielle to the brood - she’s coming in July.)
Quoth the Raven,I think it’s more of the ‘thinking it’s okay to keep popping out kid after kid and raise them on welfare’ mentality that people would like to weed out, not the actual people.
While I think this woman has been pretty stupid…not a good trait when it is combined with amazing fertility…I really think the problem is the welfare system. Like DianaG, I don’t think it’s right to cut off the money at this point, but I have to also agree with featherlou that a better solution would be to cut off the fertility. It simply makes no sense whatsoever that anyone should have more children than they can afford. The rest of us have discovered that our incomes don’t expand with the size of our families, and therefore we make decisions about family size based on how well our incomes can meet the needs of the family. There is NO REASON that people on welfare should not be subject to the same logic as everyone else in this regard. As far as I can see, anyone applying for welfare has made a statement that they cannot support themselves or the family they currently have. To have any additional children is irresponsible, and IMO, a form of blackmail, since we have agreed as a society that we do not wish for children to go hungry.
What we really need in this country is drastic reform. Reform of the the public schools, so that ALL children can have access to decent educations, and reform of the welfare system, so that people can get real job training and decent housing. To me, there simply seems to be nothing more demoralizing than to let the state take care of you and your children, and I think it is deeply regretful that our country encourages it.
“people we’d like to weed out”
Ok, but you’ll excuse the confusion? 
yeah yeah, deep down I know she wasn’t really advocating genocide!
I just think that cutting out welfare will make things worse.
Well, that’s that nailed, IMO Sarahfeena… well said
I see the confusion. I just didn’t take it as literally 
.
Sarahfeena got it in one.
FTR, when I said “weeding out,” I meant OFF THE WELFARE SYSTEM, not life. Welfare was created as a safety net for families who had fallen on tough times; it wasn’t created to be the sole means of support for able-bodied adults who exacerbate their own financial troubles by bringing more and more children into the world.
I was raised to believe you don’t bring a dog into the house that you cannot take care of. You most certainly don’t bear a child that you can’t afford. To repeat that same mistake over and over and over, while relying on other people’s sweat and labor to feed yourself and your kids, is shameful, stupid and contemptible.
The Gonzalezes are just one example of thousands of people who are over-burdening our Welfare system. And we need to figure out a way to weed these people out of the system instead of allowing them to become further embedded in it. I don’t care if it makes economic sense or not, at least one of those parents should be forced to get a job. If for no other reason than to create an example for their kids that work is good and noble and necessary.
I also think society would be justified in removing their children from them and/or sterilizing the parents. Otherwise, there is nothing stopping them from bringing another 6 children into the world that they cannot feed and clothe. Society has a moral obligation to take care of the weakest members of society (e.g the children). It does NOT have a moral obligation to subsidize lazy, poor, stupid adults.
On preview: Sarahfeena said it better.
Well, I’m glad to see Lisa doesn’t wish that society ‘weed out’ the children of the poor on welfare. Do you believe their chances of being useful to society are nil, as you posted? If you do, does this belief extend to all children on welfare or just the Gonzalez 7?