# Welfare (as requested in the kid haters thread) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 7, 2009, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620 "2009-05-07T02:14:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2009, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/181 "2009-05-17T13:14:59Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > I’m saying that I’ve offered ample evidence that, barring abuse or neglect, it’s not for the betterment of the child. Can you offer evidence of your own that it is? Or is this just what seems like a good idea to you, without any evidence that it would actually work? Without cites or anything but your own intuition, you really have no support for your premise. You say that as if she wants _anything_ to be for the betterment of children. She’s made it abundantly clear that she hates children. Her “win/win” situation would be to make them as non-productive and miserable as she is. Fortunately, anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see she’s a bitter, vindictive welfare wannabe. Her motivation is envy. Doing anything for the betterment of children would be counter-productive to her plan to rid the world of them. ---
**Author:** ![flonks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3ab097/32.png) [@flonks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flonks)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2009, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/182 "2009-05-17T18:59:59Z")
I am sure the well-off are rubbing their hands … instead of discussing how the inequality between rich and poor people can be decreased, the not so well off discuss how very small sums off money can be withheld from the even poorer. Crazy world. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2009, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/183 "2009-05-17T20:41:03Z")
> [@flonks](#): > > I am sure the well-off are rubbing their hands … instead of discussing how the inequality between rich and poor people can be decreased, the not so well off discuss how very small sums off money can be withheld from the even poorer. > > Crazy world. I’m not sure why this type of self righteous drivel is necessary. Look at the long list of trivial discussions on any message board and consider the fact that you yourself are reading and posting. I’m sorry our discussion doesn’t meet with pious approval ,…no wait, I’m not. ---
**Author:** ![flonks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3ab097/32.png) [@flonks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flonks)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2009, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/184 "2009-05-17T20:51:51Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I’m sorry our discussion doesn’t meet with pious approval ,…no wait, I’m not. It’s an opinion as “valid” as the one that welfare should be bound to contraception. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2009, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/185 "2009-05-17T21:02:35Z")
> [@flonks](#): > > It’s an opinion as “valid” as the one that welfare should be bound to contraception. I agree , and that’s all it is. You didn’t stop by to join in the discussion and make a point, but merely to sanctimoniously criticize the posting and the subject in general. I find that ironic and pretty goofy. And that’s my valid opinion. ---
**Author:** ![flonks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3ab097/32.png) [@flonks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flonks)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2009, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/186 "2009-05-17T21:25:18Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I agree , and that’s all it is. You didn’t stop by to join in the discussion and make a point, but merely to sanctimoniously criticize the posting and the subject in general. I find that ironic and pretty goofy. And that’s my valid opinion. A statement on the usefulness of the discussion is a contribution to the discussion itself, whether you like it or not. I basically said the same thing as a couple of others in this thread. That is, welfare should be left as it is, the couple of abusers are not worth the change. I just said it with more sarcasm. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2009, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/187 "2009-05-17T22:10:43Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I’m not sure why this type of self righteous drivel is necessary. Look at the long list of trivial discussions on any message board and consider the fact that you yourself are reading and posting. I’m sorry our discussion doesn’t meet with pious approval ,…no wait, I’m not. She does have a valid point too, which is that we, the middle class, are like the more successful sibling. We work hard, we do the best we can, but there’s a part of us that begrudges our prodigal brother or sister, who, to us, seems not to be working has hard, getting what we see as hand outs. It feels, to some people, like those on welfare are getting something for nothing, are taking advantage, are in effect, getting away with murder. Now, if you step back and get a little perspective, it’s a little ridiculous, because much of what is perceived as “taking advantage” is myth, not fact. Also, many of us are one bad year away from being in that position, while in America, the rich just keep getting richer. Yet here we are, talking with some seriousness about stripping the poor of their children, and this fallacious idea that women are paid to have children, as if someone is making money off welfare, or living well on it. It’s a bit appalling, no? ---
**Author:** ![flonks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3ab097/32.png) [@flonks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flonks)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2009, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/188 "2009-05-17T22:17:59Z")
I am a “he” btw .😉 ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2009, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/189 "2009-05-17T22:28:29Z")
> [@flonks](#): > > I am a “he” btw .😉 Sorry! :o ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2009, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/190 "2009-05-17T23:37:52Z")
> [@flonks](#): > > A statement on the usefulness of the discussion is a contribution to the discussion itself, whether you like it or not. > > I basically said the same thing as a couple of others in this thread. That is, welfare should be left as it is, the couple of abusers are not worth the change. I just said it with more sarcasm. You’re free to comment however you like. So am I. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/191 "2009-05-18T00:04:41Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > She does have a valid point too, which is that we, the middle class, are like the more successful sibling. We work hard, we do the best we can, but there’s a part of us that begrudges our prodigal brother or sister, who, to us, seems not to be working has hard, getting what we see as hand outs. It feels, to some people, like those on welfare are getting something for nothing, are taking advantage, are in effect, getting away with murder. Now, if you step back and get a little perspective, it’s a little ridiculous, because much of what is perceived as “taking advantage” is myth, not fact. Also, many of us are one bad year away from being in that position, while in America, the rich just keep getting richer. Yet here we are, talking with some seriousness about stripping the poor of their children, and this fallacious idea that women are paid to have children, as if someone is making money off welfare, or living well on it. It’s a bit appalling, no? Actually I was never talking about stripping the poor of their children. It’s a minor discussion on one of many discussion boards so I find the self righteous indignation about the fact we’re even discussing it or the nature of the discussion a little ridiculous. Every thread of this nature I’ve ever been in someone seems to drop by to suggest that any criticism of welfare that requires something of the recipient is akin to kicking the poor down the stairs and laughing about it. What bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/192 "2009-05-18T02:15:36Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Actually I was never talking about stripping the poor of their children. It’s a minor discussion on one of many discussion boards so I find the self righteous indignation about the fact we’re even discussing it or the nature of the discussion a little ridiculous. You weren’t talking about it, but it was being discussed. I agree that it’s ridiculous, but it seems clear that not everyone thinks so. As for “self-righteous indignation,” I don’t see it. I see a debate that, at least on my side, is fact based. I object to your negative and hyperbolic characterization and I think it’s unnecessary. > [@](#): > > Every thread of this nature I’ve ever been in someone seems to drop by to suggest that any criticism of welfare that requires something of the recipient is akin to kicking the poor down the stairs and laughing about it. What bullshit. Again, I think you’re exaggerating in order to vilify your opposition. If you find this thread so ridiculous and full of bullshit, you are free to stop reading it at any time. Unless you’re enjoying pouring hyperbole and derision on anyone who disagrees with you, in which case there’s a Pit thread already in progress that you might enjoy. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/193 "2009-05-18T02:58:29Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > You weren’t talking about it, but it was being discussed. I agree that it’s ridiculous, but it seems clear that not everyone thinks so. As for “self-righteous indignation,” I don’t see it. I see a debate that, at least on my side, is fact based. I object to your negative and hyperbolic characterization and I think it’s unnecessary. Maybe you should attempt to understand what conversation you’re offering your 2 cents for before you start objecting. > [@](#): > > Again, I think you’re exaggerating in order to vilify your opposition. If you find this thread so ridiculous and full of bullshit, you are free to stop reading it at any time. Unless you’re enjoying pouring hyperbole and derision on anyone who disagrees with you, in which case there’s a Pit thread already in progress that you might enjoy. You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about but don’t seem to let that stand in the way of judging me. I was talking to a single poster about one post that came in late in the thread that had zip to do with children. I never said I found the thread ridiculous and full of bs. I’ve been posting in it pretty regularly. I’m not vilifying anyone. I’m expressing an opinion about a specific post not “anyone who disagrees”. I’ve been having extensive and civil conversations with people who disagree. I’m afraid you’re the one exaggerating because you didn’t understand the specific conversation you decided to step into. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/194 "2009-05-18T03:24:59Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Maybe you should attempt to understand what conversation you’re offering your 2 cents for before you start objecting. I saw flonks’ comment, and your response. I responded to it, because I thought he had a valid point and your reply to him was unwarranted and excessive, and then you responded to me, with a less than civil tone IMO. I’ve read the whole thread, so I feel qualified to respond to you in general, and to what you said to me in specific. > [@](#): > > I never said I found the thread ridiculous and full of bs. You said , “Actually I was never talking about stripping the poor of their children. It’s a minor discussion on one of many discussion boards so I find the self righteous indignation about the fact we’re even discussing it or the nature of the discussion a little ridiculous.” Yeah, pardon me for disagreeing that I was being self-righteous or ridiculous. I agreed that the topic was ridiculous, but I think the argument FOR it was ridiculous. Perhaps it is, in your opinion, so ridiculous that it shouldn’t even warrant a response. In that case, scroll past it. You also said, “Every thread of this nature I’ve ever been in someone seems to drop by to suggest that any criticism of welfare that requires something of the recipient is akin to kicking the poor down the stairs and laughing about it. What bullshit.” This is clearly hyperbole and a mischaracterization of your opposition. I don’t think you’d appreciate your viewpoint being similarly distorted for the purpose of dismissing it. > [@](#): > > You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about but don’t seem to let that stand in the way of judging me. I’m judging you? I don’t even know you. I know what you said TO ME. Some of the words you used were “self-righteous,” “ridiculous,” and “bullshit.” If you didn’t mean those to be directed at me, you could have been more clear. > [@](#): > > I’m afraid you’re the one exaggerating because you didn’t understand the specific conversation you decided to step into. I didn’t “step into” anything. I am fully capable of understanding the four whole posts that flonks made in this thread, which you jumped all over him for with both feet. I think it’s you that misinterpreted what he said, and are getting all defensive about it. That’s my considered opinion, sans exaggeration. I suggest you relax a bit before you respond, because I think you’re overreacting bigtime. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/195 "2009-05-18T04:07:49Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Because one is for about 40 hours a week, and the child goes home with their parents, and spends weekends with their parents, and holidays with their parents. In the other, they’re wards of the state 24/7. Do you understand the difference between eight hours a day on business days and 24 hours a day every day? It’s very straightforward. So, “warehousing” is a matter of the length of time the child spends in a group situation? OK, then, why is it OK for some folks to have 8-10-12 children? Obviously those children spend 24 hours a day in a group situation of some sort. We also still have boarding schools that are used by the really rich - are they “warehousing”? > [@](#): > > Your proposal is ludicrous. It would cost vastly more than the current system - billions and billions more - and you’ve got not a shred of evidence or logic that it would accomplish anything. It’s a ridiculous idea. Shrug. Neither of us knows whether or not it would cost any more than what we are now paying out to support generations of families on welfare. As for logic, simply because you don’t agree with something doesn’t mean it is illogical. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/196 "2009-05-18T04:28:20Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > No, I did not say that having children in a group setting was warehousing them. Please do not put words in my mouth. That’s dishonest debating. You are advocating removing infants from their mothers’ care completely and having them live as wards of the state. That is vastly different from 40 hours a week of daycare, as has been pointed out to you numerous times. So, what is splitting hairs? I advocate putting babies born to women on welfare into a group setting - I don’t call them orphanages because they are not orphans. You call it warehousing, and now you split the hair about what you said. And, how much would it be different than daycare, other than it would be a 24 hour thing? Why is it OK with you to stick a baby in a daycare for 10 or so hours a day, which means it see it’s mother maybe 2 -3 hours a day between travel time and sleep? > [@](#): > > It’s the lack of physical affection and closeness, yes, nurturing, which infants need a lot of, and which they are unlikely to receive in an institutional setting. OK, just so I don’t get accused of doing something I’m not - do you consider a daycare an institutional setting? > [@](#): > > You are advocating that government employees fill the role that a mother and father play in giving the child the affection and nurturing he needs. No, just mothers. Just like daycare workers do now. > [@](#): > > Your comparison to adoptees is irrelevant, as adoptees are not warehoused and taken care of by government employees who are doing it as a job and not out of genuine love. It was you that claimed that all sorts of awful things happen to infants who are removed from their mothers, not me. > [@](#): > > Another irrelevant point, as I didn’t say the children would be orphans, I said that what you want to do to them is put them in orphanages. An orphanage, per [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com), is “A public institution for the care and protection of children without parents.” When you take them away from parents, guess what? They are without parents. You would be making them into orphans. The children in foster care are also without parents? Seems that they aren’t since the parents can still have some rights even tho the government took their kids away. > [@](#): > > I’m saying that I’ve offered ample evidence that, barring abuse or neglect, it’s not for the betterment of the child. And I’m saying that raising a child on what the government will pay a woman is abusive and probably neglectful. You only see these studies that say that if a baby is raised without loving contact, it’s likely to turn into a child with severe problems but you are ignoring that a baby born into welfare is not likely to be born to a loving mother, be decently fed, be decently educated and/or decently protected from gangs, crime and drugs. All you are seeing are the kute little pink babies and you aren’t thinking about what those babies go home to or what that home turns those babies into. Heck, in far too many non-welfare homes these days, far too many kids are growing up with zero manners, a barely adaquate education, no sense of responsibility, no ability to delay gradification. Even if the welfare babies were actually warehoused, I begin to wonder how much worse their upbringing would be. > [@](#): > > Without cites or anything but your own intuition, you really have no support for your premise. Uh, I would find cites for an idea I have had where? ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/197 "2009-05-18T04:29:49Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > Paying FOR a woman to have a child is not “paying a woman to have a child,” which is what you said, so maybe you’re the one who deserves the :rolleyes: for not being clear, or for changing what you said when asked for a cite. There is nothing I can do about the fact that you chose to interpret my posts in the manner that you do. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/198 "2009-05-18T04:58:38Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > She does have a valid point too, which is that we, the middle class, are like the more successful sibling. We work hard, we do the best we can, but there’s a part of us that begrudges our prodigal brother or sister, who, to us, seems not to be working has hard, getting what we see as hand outs. It feels, to some people, like those on welfare are getting something for nothing, are taking advantage, are in effect, getting away with murder. Now, if you step back and get a little perspective, it’s a little ridiculous, because much of what is perceived as “taking advantage” is myth, not fact. What perspective do we need to get that makes it not look like several generations of families have spent their whole life on several forms of government handouts? Simply because you don’t want to live that way doesn’t mean these folks are not chosing this life and are not taking advantage. Do you even know any seriously poor people? ---
**Author:** ![flonks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3ab097/32.png) [@flonks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flonks)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/199 "2009-05-18T05:56:49Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > You’re free to comment however you like. So am I. That’s true. Our styles are different, though. ---
**Author:** ![Idle\_Thoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/838e76/32.png) [@Idle\_Thoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Idle_Thoughts)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2009, 9:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/200 "2009-05-18T09:15:18Z")
Oh hey, maybe this topic will set a record to this specific board as that child haters did to the Pit. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620.md?page=11)