Maybe if you get lucky, he’ll return and label you a homophobe because you dare disagree with his debating style of acting like a 3 year old.
Anyway, the point of the rant in the OP was this lady was such an exception that she was singlehandedly ruining the entire program for everyone. She will be used by those who oppose any programs to destroy the entire thing, thus denying thousands of people needed benefits. In addition to what her terrible terrible decision making choices are doing to her children. This woman seems to have no other job in life except ruining the lives of as many innocent people as she can. So she can eat it.
(Eugenics is now defined as one person? Neato, as i can now yell out “Eugenics!” next time i get turned down for a date)
Yeah, but only if your idea of asking for a date is saying “I want you to have my baby.” And if it is, I know this lady in New Orleans…
Oh lissener, where are you? Come back and play with us. Or maybe after you re-read all our fine arguments, we have changed your mind and you agree with us now. Yeah, that must be it. Glad to know you have seen the light, finally.
All I have to say is… Poor grandma and poor kids. If there was better sex ed in the schools, the high-school age kids could have given Mom the condoms handed out in class 
Since I live in New Orleans, I’ll drop in a totally unsupported bitch about the story in the OP. Since food stamps were too embarrassing, they have been replaced by cards and here those cards are called Louisiana Purchase. So we have gone from the Louisiana Purchase being associated with the expansion of our nation and a time of mass migration to someone’s welfare fund. I would love to conduct a survey of the people with these cards and ask them what the name Louisiana Purchase is based on to see how many get it right.
As for the 10 kids issues, a few years ago a candidate for governor had a commercial where he bragged that he was from a family of 9 kids, a single mom and was raised on welfare. No shit, that was one of his fucking campaign commercials. He lost and I am still thankful.
I believe that the reason is not embarrassment, but abuse. Back when I was a cashier at a convenience/deli/liquor store, it was common for people to buy a small food item (for about a quarter or so), pay for it with a food stamp dollar, get coins in change, and keep doing that until they had enough coins to buy cigarettes or booze. It was also common to swap food stamps for drugs. By having the food stamp money on a sort of debit card, the state ensures that the money will ALL be spent on eligible food, it won’t help finance the purchase of other ineligible items, and it won’t become part of the underground economy. There used to be incredible abuse in food stamps. Probably there’s still some abuse, but since I am no longer working in that field, I don’t see so much of it.
Here in Texas, we have the Lone Star card, which refers to our flag. As a native Texan, who has returned to Texas, this makes me cringe a bit.
Personally, while I am opposed to abuse and waste in these types of programs, I do believe that it would be appropriate to supply people on welfare or other state aid with condoms. Not necessarily fancy condoms, but EFFECTIVE condoms. Both for birth control AND disease control.
Link to support my claims about reducing fraud in the above post.
I, too, believe supplying condoms is a good idea. However, in such cases as this woman, I don’t think it would make a damned bit of difference. That’s the reason I believe that chemical birth control which can be verified is being taken either by medical tests or by administering the shot at regular scheduled intervals for people such as the lady in question isn’t such an absurd idea. If someone needs public assistance, I don’t think it is unreasonable at all to take for granted that it isn’t the best time for anyone to be starting or enlarging a family. It’s tough enough for someone to dig themselves out of poverty without having the extra burden of another mouth to feed, not to mention the enormous amount of time one must invest to raise a healthy child which makes finding full time employment extra difficult.
Georgia has replaced stamps with cards as well. It does make you a lot less conspicuous, since most people use the card-swipers these days. And then there’s the whole fraud issue.
So what should she do if she can’t tolerate hormonal types of BC, Creative_Munster? I mean, there are IUDs, but those can be removed, I’m sure. And what if she has a religious objection to BC? New Orleans is pretty heavily Catholic. (Granted, if that were the case, she shouldn’t be having sex either, but people have been doing THAT since time immemorial.) And what if she gets pregnant ANYWAY? No method is 100% reliable.
In principle I think it’d be a good idea, but in reality I don’t see how it’d fly. Imagine the screaming about discrimination against the poor.
Oh, it would never happen in practice, there are too many people like lissener out there who aren’t happy unless they’re being screetchy harpies about something, whether there’s an actual victim to defend or not, but it’s a nice idea in theory.
Theory is where it gets all screwed up.
Theoretically, we have the right to decide what happens to our bodies, without interference from anyone else. I support that right 100%, unwaveringly.
That woman’s children are victims of that right.
What—no French ticklers? Lousy cheap gummint . . .
Absolutely, kung fu lola.
State mandated birth control is way too slippery a slope for me.
However, I’m not sure what you do with some one like this in a civilized society.
Do you cut off her benefits and starve the children?
Do you remove them?
Do you make her enroll and complete job training programs and parenting classes in order to continue to receive benefits?
I suspect that we’re not dealing with a real bright one here.
And if you force her into a job, how will she pay for day care and decent housing on minimum wage?
How do you get to the kids to ensure that this life style is duplicated 10 times and avoid charges that the State is brainwashing the children of the poor?
*“Do you cut off her benefits…” * Yes “and starve the children?” Of course not (see below).
“Do you remove them?” Yes The woman is an unfit parent who has demonstrated that she is incapable of providing her children with the basic necessities to ensure their safety and survival. They are in danger in her home and should be removed to foster care.
*“Do you make her enroll and complete job training programs and parenting classes in order to continue to receive benefits?” *Yes
*“I suspect that we’re not dealing with a real bright one here.” * Which is no reason whatsoever not to make an effort to educate her.
“And if you force her into a job, how will she pay for day care and decent housing on minimum wage?” She won’t have to pay for day care, her children will be in foster homes. All she has to do is support herself.
*“How do you get to the kids to ensure that this life style is[n’t] duplicated 10 times and avoid charges that the State is brainwashing the children of the poor?” * Removing them to an appropriate environment is the first and best way to demonstrate that this behavior is unacceptable. Where the idea that anyone thinks the State is brainwashing poor people came from, I have no clue, but I’m not even going to address it because it’s simply absurd.
I say, remove the kids. As Truth Seeker so brilliantly pointed out, she had kids that she could not take (financial) responsibility for. Since it’s not ethical to eliminate them now that they exist, all we can do is ask someone else to take responsibility for them (as in Foster Care).
Freedom necessarily comes with Responsibility as a price tag. When individuals can’t pony up, the collective pays. It’s the tradeoff for, you know, not living in a Totalitarian state. The people who are mewing about not wanting to pay for this women’s children are kindly invited to move to Totalitopia, where everyone is personally responsible for their own Thought Crimes and don’t have any of those pesky Rights to worry about.
Thanks for correction-Shayna.
You’re right of course, but isn’t it reasonable for the state to set limits if you’re incapable of doing it yourself? When you have to ask someone for money, you don’t get to set all the rules.
As an aside to this debate, does anyone have a reliable cite for what percentage of the federal budget goes to social spending like this. The Treasury Department’s website seems designed to make that information difficult to fine (all I really want is a damn pie chart) and the searches that I do in Google are all pretty obviously biased (for example, if you look at the pie chart here (scroll down a bit), we are told that 59% of spending is for social programs, yet this site splits veteran’s benefits off as “past military spending” and claims only 34% for social spending. I guess that I could see it either way, but would prefer raw but digestible data from which I draw my own conclusions.
Yeah, ghod forbid any of the OP woman’s kids should grow up and want to run for public office. Only people from rich families should represent our great nation.
Besides not having all of them in a one-bedroom apartment, and keeping brothers and sisters apart, what’s the difference between the State helping this woman pay for raising her kids, and the State helping the foster parents pay for raising her kids?