You mad? :rolleyes:
No. You forgot food stamps, subsidized housing, subsidized daycare and whatever else I can’t think of off the top of my head. Plus the joke that is our school system, which produces things like “nearly half of Detroiters can’t read” - I didn’t save the url but it was on the CBS Detroit site four days ago.
Also, just because more children are off the dole doesn’t mean they aren’t living in poverty, it could easily mean that more just don’t qualify any more due to the reforms. And your stats are five years old, meaning prior to the current economy. And you ignore all of the non-government handouts (which seem to be increasing, but that’s just my observation).
However, if they didn’t pump out those babies, they would be getting no handouts at all. If you are living in Detroit, came from poverty and are one of that almost 50% who cannot read, do you think you are going to be able to get a job? The answer for the women is to have children, and apparently the answer for the men is to become criminals. And we are subsidizing the children that these folks are raising.
Actually, most of the people in this thread who have expressed an opinion follow me around to harass me because I think people should be more responsible, particularly when it comes to reproduction. Because that means I don’t think every pregnancy is a blessing and every child a miracle, I’m just too different for some folks to process and they fall back on insults. Nothing new in the school yard.
People who are not blinded by “teh baybees” have no trouble understanding what I am saying. The reason there are not more folks posting on “my side” is because most people cannot stomach the way the general public reacts to anyone who doesn’t lose their mind over babies, particularly if it is a woman. Most people just don’t seem to be able to think logically on the subject. There is an example below.
That isn’t exactly my fault. I made one comment, way back on page one, and right away the first response was what appears to be a willful misunderstanding of what I’d said.
…what you have to say is sad. I very much hope that before you marry you have a clearer understanding of what a good marriage is.
Zeriel are you paying attention to this? At what point did I say anything that could even by the biggest idiot be interpreted to say that I think children should be pimped out for crayons? That’s right, I haven’t. But unless Gary here is a complete moron (always a possibility) this has to be from a willful desire to misunderstand what I have said, or just making shit up.
First of all: we’re talking about specific benefits for having kids. You get subsidized housing regardless, and food stamps regardless.
Food stamps: $133 per person per month in the program on average, but no good numbers on children or parents with children specifically.
In my state, you can have subsidized day care OR TANF, but not both, so I don’t see any need to consider it.
WIC? Average $42.80 per person per month in my state.
LIHEAP? Average $237 between $442 per year, again no information on participation. That’s between $19 and $37 per month.
So you’re still getting bent out of shape over the fact that 5% of children are getting an average of under $500 per month in assistance.
That 5% number is what boggles my mind about your position. We’re in a severe recession that’s seen double-digit unemployment in areas and you’re concerned that some major proportion of 5% of the population is made up solely of deadbeats? For Christ’s sake, less than a third of children currently living under the poverty line receive welfare benefits.
The fact that you’re getting overwrought about such small payments to such a small population indicates that you’ve got some kinda issue beyond what you claim your issue is.
50% who can’t read, but only 5% of children are getting federally funded assistance. Something doesn’t add up there, but I’m not sure what.
And seriously, look at the numbers: You do NOT get enough from any aid for having children to make it worth your while to have children, period. No one is actually having babies solely to increase their welfare checks. No one is maliciously defrauding you by pumping out babies. The expansion of inner city poor family sizes is not due to us spending a lot of money on welfare and subsidies, because we give those people criminally low amounts of money that are not adequate to support the children, let alone confer any benefit to the parents.
Hell, half the time I don’t think my OWN daughter is a blessing and a miracle. She’s a lot of work, and sucks up tons of cash and time. Take your starry-eyed bullshit somewhere else.
We’re busting your balls because welfare rolls have been steadily declining since 1996, and the aid we provide to children in poverty is miniscule, yet you seem to think it’s some huge amazing portion of the government budget.
For someone who tosses around accusations of stupidity, you certainly have a severe problem distinguishing serious positions from abject mockery.
Well, no, at least on the housing. From HUD’s site - “An HA determines your eligibility based on: 1) annual gross income; 2) whether you qualify as elderly, a person with a disability, or as a family; and 3) U.S. citizenship or eligible immigration status.” So poor people without children or a disability, and who are not elderly cannot get subsidized housing regardless.
The food stamps - I made the mistake of assuming that it was the same as it was 30 years ago when I applied and was told they were only available to those with children. Looking at what the HUD site says, they may have meant not available to young, able people without children.
Aside from you thinking because something isn’t done in your state, it must not matter, that is $500 per child per month and in my state I have to imagine that is a much higher number. Plus, another thing we haven’t factored in that I just remembered is Medicaid, and in my state, DentiCal.
5% (if true) was 4 million, remember? Even at that low $500 per kid, well my calculator says $2 billion, can that be right? Every month?
Again, read what I write - I already pointed out that your stats were five years old and the number could be much higher now. I have also pointed out that during a severe recession, those programs should be used. I have a problem with them being used to raise multiple generations, teaching each one to be dependent.
If my calculator is right about that $2 billion, I’m not see that as “such small payments”.
You miss my point. For one thing, staying with Detroit, per this, “According to the organization Kids Count in Michigan, the poverty rate among children under 18 went from 14 percent in 2000 to 23 percent in 2009. The percentage of children receiving food stamps or similar assistance increased from ten to 28 percent over the same period.” Two years later, it is reported that almost 50% of the people in that city can’t read, during a severe recession, in a city that was already in a hole - and those folks are still having babies. In the nine years between 2000 and 2009, despite assistance and a free education, you have a population where almost half are unprepared for a job beyond “do you want fries with that?”. Do you really think that giving them free housing, food, medical care and money for every baby they have is going to help them be self sufficient? It doesn’t seem to be working in Detroit.
Do you not see the contradiction here? Family sizes are growing, but we aren’t giving them enough money to support their children? Are they all making up the difference by dealing drugs or holding up 7-11s?
I am the least starry-eyed person you will probably ever find when it comes to children. However, I have noticed that the “blessing and miracle” part seems to wear off once they quit being cute little babies and start be more like little people.
Again, this is something I’ve never said - if asked, I’d probably say we spend most of our tax money on the military and supporting politicians. But that isn’t the subject here.
Since he’s said it twice now and without any smilies, I have to believe he is being serious. And even if he isn’t, someone else will come along and believe I actually said that and carry it forward. It’s happened with equally stupid things.
Excuse me for not bothering to be conversant of the state-level policies of someplace I hope never to live.
Sure it could. $24 billion a year is peanuts when you’re discussing, as you seem to be, “all Federal and State budgets” (based on the fact you wanted me to include programs other than federal welfare). It is literally too small to worry about when we have as much waste as we do in other areas (like the military, and ag subsidies).
Bolding mine. I invite you to find better stats.
So here’s my question: What’s the alternative?
I don’t think you’ve shown in ANY way that “less welfare” will lead to “fewer children”. I think I’ve shown that welfare payments per child are so ridiculously low that they cannot be a primary motivating factor–for the average household receiving welfare, 14 hours a week at McDonalds will earn more money than their aggregate benefits.
So how do you propose changing things? We already limit welfare at the federal level and in my state to people actively hunting jobs or literally unable to work. What solution do you have that doesn’t involve “cutting off payments and letting children, who DIDN’T make these bad decisions, starve”? Orphanages? Poor houses? Mass sterilization?
Stealing. Part-time crap jobs. Simply doing without and raising the kids on McDonalds Dollar Menu and instant ramen–and given how childhood nutrition is strongly correlated to IQ, perpetuating low achievement.
Frankly I’m expecting the opposite: she’s cute and all, but she’s annoying as hell and not as cute as my cats. When she becomes an actual person then there will commence some benefit to the effort.
Ridiculous. You shouldn’t need smilies to realize that you’re being mocked when being accused of such things.
The fact that you continue to say this in the face of all manner of evidence to the contrary speaks more about your lack of intelligence than possibly anything else you’ve ever said, and that is a considerable achievement.
For one, those of us who think you’re a total moron don’t ‘follow you around’, we just happen to read your stupid posts on a message board we frequent and we respond to your stupidity rather than just let it hang out there. I don’t search you out and respond to you in every thread you post in, and I’m quite sure that you say equally dumb stuff when I’m not around. Unless you feel that other people who disagree with you should not have the right to read this message board then the accusation of ‘following you around’ is completely fallacious. Also, many of the rest of us do not like kids and do not plan on ever having them - there are tons of childfree-by-choice people on here. Most of us are behind the idea of people being more responsible, we just don’t think being more responsible means ‘make every decision exactly like curlcoat did’ - and thank god, look how pointless and wasteful your life has turned out to be. You’re not ‘too different for some folks to process’, you’re too brainless and hypocritical for almost anyone to take seriously. There’s a difference.
I know you like to feel special and persecuted, but we are just reacting to the highly unpleasant person you actually are. You could act different and be treated better. The ball is in your court.
Ah. Well then excuse me for not bothering to be interested in your opinion on whether or not assistance programs make up a large portion of my tax burden.
As I said, the military, etc is not the subject here. As for $24 billion a year being peanuts, I think I see how the government and so many individuals get so deeply in debt.
Nah, that balls in your court, since you are the one yammering on about how bad the economy is and how that must be affecting so many more people.
I have, several times, and you all with children don’t like the ideas.
Really? 14 hours of minimum wage is less than the money you thought was the amount they are getting without including housing, medical, dental, etc, and that’s only for one kid.
Making my point here.
Uh huh. People make wild leaps of “logic” in here all the time. Example below.
And yet, you pop up right on cue.
Neither do I.
Somehow, working for almost 4 decades, not taking unemployment benefits when I didn’t need to, not taking disability until at least 10 years after I qualified for it, have a happy currently 17 year marriage, lots of friends and personally fulfilling activities is pointless and wasteful. What glorious and wonderful things have you been doing with your life?
Amazing how there are a few here that cannot deal with what I post and some who agree.
Oh please. You have been a complete bitch since the word go, simply because you don’t like what I say. That doesn’t make me “special and persecuted”, that makes you a toad.
No dog in this fight, but .. is this really necessary? 
Are you under the impression that someone should get to call other people nasty names and endlessly judge their choices without ever having any judgment made on her life? It seems to me that her life is pointless and wasteful, and since she’s happy to be such a vile hag all the time I’m comfortable telling her that. If she wasn’t such a cow I wouldn’t share that opinion with her. As with all other things involving curlcoat, she is hearing these things only as a result of her own unpleasant behaviour.
To quoque?
I can’t say that you’re wrong, but what do you get of it? (The same question applies to Gary Kumquat suggesting she set up a webcam to avoid having to depend on her husband.)
What I get out of it is the sheer joie de vivre that comes from demonstrating to idiots that they’re stupid and hypocritical.
Through no fault of their own, some kids come from families that won’t provide them with crayons/glue/whatever. Along comes curlcoat with the insightful position that teachers trying to solve this problem in a common sense way should not be allowed for " those who cannot be bothered to be responsible for themselves", and that “I think the possibility of “humiliating” a few kindergardeners is far better than teaching them all that earning things is unnecessary, because someone will come along and hand you whatever you need”, and other such gems of wisdom and caring.
Now if she believes that, then surely the same rules should apply to her. If it’s ok for a child to be humiliated to show the importance of self responsibility, surely that applies to curlcoat too? Don’t be daft. In a drearily predictable display of hypocrisy, Curlcoat argues that she’s too disabled to work herself, but that’s ok because she’s supported by her husband. Well, if humiliation is acceptable, then she should have no problem with running a sexcam to earn her keep. If being self sufficient is so important, how can she tolerate having to rely on her husband’s largesse?
So by all means continue to feel I’m being mean to poor curlcoat, but as far as I’m concerned, tough shit. She’s a cretinous hypocrite who deserves all the scorn she gets.
As I said, I don’t have a dog in this one, and was enjoying this thread until it turned into The Curlcoat Show. I find her M.O. tiresome and wish she would stop hijacking interesting threads.
Still, I’m not seeing the hypocrisy. She’s being supported by her husband, who (presumably) had a choice in the matter. And where’s the equivalence between having to go without crayons and having to run a sexcam to earn your keep? Seriously, that one made me go :o
I don’t care for curlcoat, but I don’t think anyone deserves to be told their life is “pointless” and “wasteful” or that they should run a sexcam to earn their keep. Yikes.
Look, if you’re going to skim my posts and continue to make week/month errors, that’s your own fault.
You have not demonstrated any workable plan. You have not demonstrated that there is even a problem. And you wonder why we mock you.
Do you think that being told to run a sexcam is more or less distasteful than advocating the humiliation of children to prove a point?
I don’t think anyone deserves to be told that just randomly, even if it is true. But after all the hideous things curly has said here (eg. telling someone else they should have aborted their children), yeah, I think she deserves to hear it. Why should we sugar coat the truth for someone who has no respect for anyone else’s feelings?
As for what I get out of it - shit, what do any of us get out of posting in any thread on this message board? Curlcoat is a moron, and moreover is so painfully stupid that she doesn’t even have the means to *know *she’s a moron, and as **Gary **says, there is simple pleasure in “demonstrating to idiots that they’re stupid and hypocritical”.
And so what is your solution. The current system isn’t working, so we should jettison it altogether in order to teach people to be self-reliant and more responsible, is that it?
And in the meantime, people should just be homeless, starving and uneducated?
Explain your solution. You keep whining about your perception of a problem but you have no solutions. All you have are your completely unsubstantiated fairytales of huge families getting benefits that they live off of meagerly for years or a lifetime (also false unless there’s disability involved) and a rampant problem of children suffering unacceptably – by your standards – because their parents are poor.
Beyond your wretched hypocrisy, this is the most frustrating thing about you. You are happy to bray about all the things you believe that people are doing wrong when it comes to having children, a subject you literally know NOTHING about, but you have no actual facts to back up your suppositions, and worse, have no answers when asked what we as a society should be doing better. Give some damn specifics for a change, ones that actually make sense, not “wait to have children until you’re out of debt” acting like you’re unaware (which perhaps you are, having never attended college) that someone who takes out student loans for a four year degree will come out of college with, on average, $30,000 in debt, and that’s without ever buying anything, not a jacket (let alone a house or a big car or a big screen TV or anything else you suggest in your fantasies about "irresponsible spending) and that debt is, on average, not discharged until they’re in their late 30s. (At which point beginning a family is functionally impossible for many, and medically inadvisable for many more.)
Give some practical solutions. That’s all anyone has ever asked of you. Put up or shut up. All your complaining amounts to nothing if you don’t have a single functional answer and so far, you don’t. You never have.
Not subsidized housing, and for the obvious reason: it’s much simpler to find a flexible and lower-cost housing solution like renting a single room, sharing a one or two bedroom apartment or turning to boarding houses or SROs as a single adult or adult couple without disabilities.
Having a child increases the amount of space you need (both functionally and legally) plus demands access to a kitchen, and reduces the likelihood and feasibility of many typical shared housing arrangements being feasible, especially with non-family members. We subsidize housing so that those with fewer options (families with children, people with disabilities and the elderly) can live in safe places.
Only Curlcoat seems to find this to be outrageous.
In all states, because subsidized day care is only available for workers and students; TANF is only available to those who are not working, not enrolled in any sort of educational program and need support for their most basic needs. You can’t get both.
And exceedingly limited in both what it can be used for (mainly milk) and who can use it (pregnant and breastfeeding people and children under age five, with no extensions for disability or any other situation).
Lump sum, because it’s specifically and only for assistance in paying for home heating, and the majority of recipients are the elderly. (That it pays only for heating and there is no subsidy for higher energy costs for cooling in summer is why major cities have to open cooling centers when there’s a major heat wave and there are still always a number of elderly people who found in their homes literally cooked to death.)
Yes, Curlcoat is, because that adds up to billions of dollars – in a national budget of nearly $3.5 trillion. Though she can’t quite seem to name what else we, as a society, should be spending money on if not to ensure that people have safe and decent and appropriately temperate housing, adequate food, and a basic education. These are fairly basically understood obligations of a society to everyone except Curlcoat. And the Tea Party.
And to drive home the hypocrisy, the majority of the federal budget, after the military, goes to fund programs for the elderly, not for children. Medicare and Social Security eat up more than 1/3 of the federal budget. Curlcoat has no problem with these entitlement programs. Curlcoat has no children. Curlcoat relies upon Social Security (along with Sugar Daddy Husband).
Curlcoat is as transparent (and not quite as substantive) as Saran Wrap.
I agree with your whole post, but curlcoat has expressed repeatedly in the past that she thinks education is a worthless endeavour and a waste of money. She genuinely doesn’t get that society would not function if it weren’t for at least some people being highly educated, and that almost always means either government funding or personal debt (usually both). A university graduate with a good job who chooses to have children while still paying off their student loans is not being irresponsible - as you say, waiting to pay off those loans would basically mean no children for educated people, which doesn’t seem like a smart solution to the current problem. But even a doctor or lawyer can end up unemployed or unable to work for long enough to need some kind of assistance for them and their kids, no matter how well they plan.
The curlcoat school of finance seems to be that if you have debt on one thing, you should not even think about having debt on another thing at the same time. This is patently absurd - most people have multiple debts at once at points in their lives (mortgage, student loan, car payment, etc.). There’s nothing wrong with that if you can budget appropriately to pay those things off. But even if you’re saving, you can end up in financial trouble if unexpected life events occur.
Her position is, as far as I can tell, never, ever have children unless you know 100% for sure that you will never, ever have a financial problem. That’s completely impossible for anyone but the super-rich. But she refuses to waver, and if punishing the children of less than super-rich people is what it takes, then by god that’s what she’ll do.
A minor quibble: LIHEAP does pay for cooling in states where high temperatures create a health risk.
I’ve said it before (in many topics) and here it is again: I’m actually of a firm belief Curlcoat is actually a troll.
I know, I know…a lot will always rush in and say something like “No, I believe she’s really that stupid” or “No, some people are that moronic”, etc.
But Curlcoat is different. She will continually claim she’s right…even when shown 100 cites that very clearly say the exact opposite of what she’s saying. She literally ignores all rebuffs and links shown to her. It is akin to someone sticking their fingers in their ears and going 'LALALALALALALLALALALALALAL, I CAN’T HEEEAAAAAR YOUUUUUU"…all while continually saying she’s the one that’s right and everyone else is wrong.
IMO, that’s trollish behavior.
Secondly, she never gives up. I’ve said this in a few topics before this one, too…she’s almost like a “Last Word Troll”, meaning she has GOT to have the last word. Everyone in this topic will give up, believe me, before curlcoat stops posting to it, wherein she will probably declare it another “victory” for herself.
I’m almost convinced that’s her sole purpose here. To get the last word in threads she participates in.
And yet, I don’t judge your life, despite you calling me nasty names and endlessly judging me for things I haven’t done. Funny that.
Oh please. Do you really think a 5 year old will be humiliated because s/he doesn’t have as many/as nice/whatever crayons as their deskmate?
Many many women are supported by their husbands - why do you have such a big problem with this?
The fact I turn down the sexcam has nothing to do with humiliation, it has to do with my lack of desire to waste money on the webcam and the website when I am fully aware that I would never get that money back.
As for me living on my husband’s “largesse”, that has nothing to do with my point. We are self sufficient as a unit, just as some of your precious SAHM’s are self sufficient as unit.
Honey, I don’t hijack anything. I made one small comment and the twits came out of the wood work. If there is a hijack, it is being done by Meyer and a couple of others.
There isn’t any - they have a problem with me taking my SS early and try to equate it with taking welfare, food stamps, subsidized housing etc. Because I am not now working, they try to pretend that I have always been a drain on society even tho I worked for almost 40 years.
No I don’t. And for you to say I skim your posts is extremely laughable. You’ve failed to address most of my points and spend most of your time just making insults. You are getting boring again.