# 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:** 2
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2009, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/21 "2009-05-07T05:27:44Z")
> [@starwarsfreek42](#): > > Slow down, there. I’m not trying to do anything. I’m a poor college student studying for final exams and trying to keep my head above the water. Hoo, boy, you are at high risk of a very rude awakening when you leave college! Good luck finding a job - _you will need it_. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2009, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/22 "2009-05-07T05:30:33Z")
> [@flickster](#): > > All recipients of assistance (welfare, food stamps, etc) must submit to initial, and be available for random, drug testing as long as they are receiving benefits Well, to be fair, that would also include everyone collecting social security, correct? Because we don’t want senior citizens blowing their monthly checks on… blow. Right? It _is_ a form of government assistance, after all. Any granny who objects can just get off her lazy butt and get a job, right? ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Skeezix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/aca169/32.png) [@Red\_Skeezix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Skeezix)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2009, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/23 "2009-05-07T05:36:41Z")
> [@Caveat\_lector\_1](#): > > So the people either don’t know about it (which would not surprise me at all) or they don’t want it. If they don’t want it you are trying to get them to take it by stripping them of their benefits if they don’t. How is that not coercive? So what if it is coercive? The government isn’t in the business of not being coercive. The government exists to serve the government’s best interests. Is it any less coercive if the government takes money from my hands and gives it to someone else? I could resist their efforts but they’d just put me in jail. The problem with stripping benefits is that people make poor decisions, but are we willing to starve children for their parents failure to comply with the rules? And as much as it chaps my ass that every pay period some of my tax dollars go to keep the lazy/stupid in the style that they’ve become accustomed to. Its not like I’d ever see that money if there wasn’t entitlement programs. I’m reasonably certain that the government can find new and exciting uses for my hard earned dollars. And besides even though there’s no hard and fast evidence that I know of that says that welfare keeps people away from crime. Its one of those things that seems to be true, so if I wasn’t helping to feed the poor kids, then that money in all likely hood would be used to pay for more police officers and prison guards; aka right-wing welfare. Just the cost of administering the drugs and keeping track of when/who got the drugs is a bureaucratic nightmare the cost of which is probably an order of magnitude higher than the current welfare system. In the end it seems like either giving freely(allowing the taxation) enough for people to barely exist on, or let them starve and die or kill and steal. ---
**Author:** ![flickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7bcc69/32.png) [@flickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flickster)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2009, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/24 "2009-05-07T05:36:59Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Well, to be fair, that would also include everyone collecting social security, correct? Because we don’t want senior citizens blowing their monthly checks on… blow. Right? > > It _is_ a form of government assistance, after all. Any granny who objects can just get off her lazy butt and get a job, right? The difference is that SS benefits are based at least in part on the amount contributed while working many years. Vastly different than welfare. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2009, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/25 "2009-05-07T05:46:02Z")
Ah, so all the years my sister worked and paid taxes to support the welfare system don’t count? She pays into the system, why shouldn’t she collect when she needs help? That’s my point - the _assumption_ is that the poor are always poor and stay that way, which totally ignores the many, many people who are _temporarily_ poor and just need assistance for a brief period of time. It also, again, times into the idea that “responsible” people who pay taxes will never need assistance because they’re “responsible”. The idea behind a social safety net is that you pay for it and hope to god you never need it, but if you do, it’s there. And hey - the idea proposed were these requirements for ANY government assistance. _Any_. That would have to include social security. And certainly anyone on disability would have to be rendered sterile as well, right? And anyone receiving FEMA money for a natural disaster. Unless you just want to admit you’re passing moral judgment on anyone who, at a particular point in time, doesn’t have sufficient income to meet your standards. People who get FEMA aid are simply suffering misfortune - people who lost their job and need some help getting enough to frickin’ _eat_ are stupid, lazy, and bad people no matter what their circumstances may have been last year or the year before, or how they got to that point. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Skeezix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/aca169/32.png) [@Red\_Skeezix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Skeezix)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2009, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/26 "2009-05-07T05:56:13Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > _I need a job that pays a living wage_. You know, enough to cover my rent and food and a few toiletries for me and my husband This is a major issue, and one that has no real solution in a market-based economy. Any attempts to artificially increase wages will not result in an increase of purchasing power due to higher cost of goods resulting from higher mandatory wages. Welfare reform ideas tend not to address the following questions: (you, refers to anyone who cannot/will not earn a living wage due to what ever reasons exist) Since the skills you possess are not in high enough demand to merit a living wage, does that mean you deserve not to live? Or does it mean you should change your skills? Who pays for that education? Who pays for the food while you are educated? Who says you will choose a more marketable skill? How does education take into account shifts in the market? What about people who are unable to learn new skills? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2009, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/27 "2009-05-07T05:59:00Z")
Putting aside whether it would be a good policy idea to condition welfare this way, as a practical matter, your plan would be unconstitutional. Generally speaking, the government cannot condition public benefits upon the non-exercise of constitutional rights. For example, unemployment benefits cannot be conditioned upon a willingness to work on Saturdays because of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment [1]. It is actually a good bit more complicated than that, but that’s pretty much what it boils down to. The right to procreate is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment [2]. So a law seeking to condition welfare benefits on a person giving up the right to procreate would be unconstitutional. For the same reason, you cannot condition welfare benefits on drug testing because it requires a waiver of Fourth Amendment rights. Michigan is the only state to attempt to impose drug testing of welfare recipients. And that was struck down as unconstitutional in 2003 for the reasons I’ve given above [3]. There are good reasons for wanting to limit the kinds of conditions the government can put on welfare. Allowing the government to bribe people into giving up constitutional rights can have all kinds of nasty implications. Do you really want the government to be coercing certain kinds of people into having or not having children? It might seem like a good idea to you in a limited circumstance, but if you give a mouse a cookie… [1] Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963). [2] Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639 (1974). [3] Marchwinski v. Howard, 113 F. Supp. 2d 1134 (E.D. Mich. 2000), aff’d, 60 F. App’x 601 (6th Cir. 2003). ---
**Author:** ![starwarsfreek42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e56c9b/32.png) [@starwarsfreek42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/starwarsfreek42)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2009, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/28 "2009-05-07T06:00:21Z")
> [@flickster](#): > > Sorry if this was already included and I missed it… > > All recipients of assistance (welfare, food stamps, etc) must submit to initial, and be available for random, drug testing as long as they are receiving benefits Brilliant. > [@ghardester](#): > > All forms of government assistance?? If you already had a child receiving an education at a public school, no more kids for you! Kid in college and your income allows him to get federal student aid, back on birth control! Drive on the freeway to get to work? No donut! Build your own road! Government assistance is just a matter of degree, everyone is getting some form, and I mean everyone, even the richest person. > > What you are really talking about is a government enforced eugenics program where only the very privileged will be able to reproduce. You yourself say that you are a poor college student, under your new world view you would not exist. Dude, this isn’t my new world view. It came up in the thread, somebody wanted to discuss it. End of story. > [@Broomstick](#): > > So… screw any right to privacy, bodily integrity, the right to refuse medical treatment or, for women, control over her own body? This is inherently discriminatory because this part of the plan _solely_ affects women and ignores the fact that men are 50% responsible for any child generated. > > What if a woman doesn’t show up for her “direct deposit” exam? Will you have her arrested? > > You are talking about coercively forcing women to undergo medical treatment. My free birth control right now is contingent upon me submitting to a full physical, pap smear and an STD screening annually. If I don’t show up for that, I no longer get my shot. Is that coercion? It doesn’t bother me a bit because I understand that I have a choice in the matter. Of course nobody’s going to jail, don’t be ridiculous. > [@](#): > > Again, this process appears to disregard that whenever a child is brought into the world there is a man involved. > So there’s a birth control failure and you kick two people to the curb? You _do_ realize that there will be conceptions _despite_ birth control even when both parties do everything right, correct? So… your birth control fails and two people are now without any form of assistance at all. Good show. Of course men are involved in bringing children into the world. There is no pill or patch available for men, and although I’d support free vaesectomies, that’s way more invasive that a shot so nobody will go for it. This is all assuming that the child support system would still be in place, as far as I know. And let’s rephrase the bit about conceiving while on government assistance: if you followed through with your birth control and there was a failure, no problem. Stuff happens. If, however, you skip it, or are a week late getting your shot and come up pregnant, that’s not cool. > [@](#): > > How about a _free abortion_ being offered? Oh, right - can’t kill the unborn, let’s just make their parents _even more_ destitute… > Hey, why don’t you just snatch the little rugrats away and give them up for adoption? Well, abortions are expensive too, but less so than raising a kid for 18 years, so I’m down with that. > [@](#): > > Seriously - who decides what “supplies” are needed? Which toys? Does this include school uniforms (which even some public schools require) or are such kids just out of luck? You’re proposing a logistical nightmare. Um, the parents? Suppose they have a list of items to choose from or order, and they decide what they need this week. The schools ought to provide a uniform if they require one. Maybe it is a logistical nightmare. I did say I’d just made it up, if you didn’t notice. > [@](#): > > Excuse me - they’re disqualified for “assistance” but they’re being given basic food/shelter/water? Isn’t that assistance? > > Frankly - guarantee of basic food and shelter is more than many people are getting TODAY from government assistance. It’s certainly more than I’m getting. So why is that a problem for you? > [@](#): > > No, we’re not. Um… we’re not? Do tell. > [@](#): > > In other words, pretty much just like today if you’re uninsured and your unemployment benefits have run out. Yes, but with far fewer welfare kids being born. > [@](#): > > In other words, food pantries and soup kitchens. Of course, if you’re so poor as to have lost your home good luck cooking “bulk” items like beans without a stove… Didn’t I say shelter was included even for those who disqualified for things like pell and unemployment? > [@](#): > > How charming - you obviously haven’t been unemployed and looking for a job recently. Yesterday I heard on the radio there are four jobseekers for every available job right now - guess 3 out of those 4 are just screwed, huh? Your system presupposes there is a job at a living wage for everyone able-bodied. Right now, there isn’t. > > So, if your plan were implemented right now you’d have 75% of the people currently looking for work S.O.L - the women would all be forcibly sterilized (albeit temporarily) and if they _did_ get pregnant said woman and her significant other would be stripped of all aid without recourse to an abortion (which they would not have the money for and, not being a medical emergency, they would not qualify to get under your plan). The alternative being to receive no help whatsoever which benefits them… how? Because the radio is an excellent source of quality information about the unemployment rate. The hypothetical plan here isn’t set in stone, we can add free abortions if you like. Simmer down, why don’t cha? > [@](#): > > Which does _squat_ if employers aren’t hiring. And helps tremendously if they are. Does it hurt anything if they aren’t? > [@](#): > > So far, this is the only part of your proposed system that I feel has any merit whatsoever. So? It’s not like my proposed system is going into effect next week, so who cares? > [@](#): > > I’m sorry - what makes you think that anyone in the private sector would loan money to someone stripped of all means of support to the point of being unable to house themselves? I’m not a loan officer. My in-laws have several loans and they don’t have shit for collateral. There must be some option. And if there isn’t, who says they can’t wait till they get a job and are eligible for a pell grant again? > [@](#): > > I have TWO jobs at the moment, and I still wouldn’t say I’m living “comfortably”. Until last September I was working two jobs and going to school and caring for 9 rescued animals in my own house. I’m still not living comfortably, but I’m not depending on anybody but myself, either. > [@](#): > > Which, again, is only helpful _if employers are hiring_ and if the jobs available _provide a living wage_. A full time minimum wage is NOT enough to live on in most urban areas. Here, minimum wage is $6.55. That X 40 = $262. If you make that in a week, then in a month that’s $1048. Since I fall into a higher tax bracket and have more taken from my check, this pretty close to what I come home with after taxes. If you can’t make rent, utilities, gas, and food on that, you’re doing something wrong. > [@](#): > > Right, because everyone woman on welfare is a “welfare mom” and no one middle class ever falls on hard times. :rolleyes: > > I have a sister who for the first 45 years of her life lived a middle class lifestyle with a job and income. She and her husband very much wanted and planned and provided for her children. Well, at this point she no longer has a husband, she’s trying to get her boys out of high school and into college, and yes, she’s on welfare - so suddenly she’s a “welfare mom” and her boys are “unplanned” because _right now_ they’re going through hard times. I mean, she hears it all the time. It’s just one example of a kneejerk assumptions that people make _all the time_. The assumption is NEVER that you’re a responsible person fallen on hard times, if you’re poor today the assumption is _you’ve always been poor, and you will always be poor_. > > Of course, I understand why people do that - if they ever admitted that someone might up poor through no fault of their own, that you can do everything “right” and still wind up destitute it would just rock their little world. It means that simply “being responsible” won’t _guarantee_ that Bad Things never happen to them. Yeah, every mom on welfare can be defined as a welfare mom. That doesn’t mean they are moochers or haven’t genuinely fallen on hard times, or that their children were unplanned. The hard times were unplanned. But they are still moms… on welfare. Hell, my whole life so far has consisted of hard times, I do everything right, and yet I can remember a week last summer I went without lights because I couldn’t afford to buy any light bulbs. Another week it was toilet paper. (It’s really annoying to take like 6 showers a day.) Bad things happen to everybody, and there’s a sytem in place to take care of us when it does. It’s just that, in my humble opinion, if you aren’t supporting yourself by your own means you shouldn’t feel that you have the right to bring someone else into the world to either suffer with you or be supported by the rest of society. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2009, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/29 "2009-05-07T06:03:18Z")
> [@Red\_Skeezix](#): > > Since the skills you possess are not in high enough demand to merit a living wage, does that mean you deserve not to live? > > Or does it mean you should change your skills? Who pays for that education? Who pays for the food while you are educated? > > Who says you will choose a more marketable skill? > > How does education take into account shifts in the market? If you did choose a marketable skill, whose to say it will still be in demand 20 years later? I picked up a sure-fire-you-will-never-be-unemployed skill or two in high school and college only to have the rendered obsolete by technology. There is _still_ a demand for these skills, but modern tech allows the jobs to be outsourced to third world countries. I have no objections to the people in, say, Mumbai making a living but I need to eat, too. ---
**Author:** ![starwarsfreek42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e56c9b/32.png) [@starwarsfreek42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/starwarsfreek42)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2009, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/30 "2009-05-07T06:06:57Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Hoo, boy, you are at high risk of a very rude awakening when you leave college! Good luck finding a job - _you will need it_. I’ve worked forty hours a week since I was 18. I have a job now. It’s not a job in the field I’m studying, but it pays the bills. Why would you assume that just because I’m a college student I’m not working? I have no rude awakenings in my future, but thanks for the concern. I also never said that education would fix everything. Please read more carefully, or at least refrain from misrepresenting my views. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Skeezix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/aca169/32.png) [@Red\_Skeezix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Skeezix)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2009, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/31 "2009-05-07T06:17:03Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > If you did choose a marketable skill, whose to say it will still be in demand 20 years later? > > I picked up a sure-fire-you-will-never-be-unemployed skill or two in high school and college only to have the rendered obsolete by technology. There is _still_ a demand for these skills, but modern tech allows the jobs to be outsourced to third world countries. I have no objections to the people in, say, Mumbai making a living but I need to eat, too. I would argue there is no such skill that will either never be without demand or never become over-saturated to a point where it is no longer a skill which can support a living wage. A person can count themselves extremely lucky if they do not out live their skill’s usefulness. And this is why education can not ever supplant social welfare. The only way to change welfare is to take it away, and that introduces morally questionable decisions. It essentially raises the market to a place where it would determine who lives and who does not. Not a society where I would like to exist. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2009, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/32 "2009-05-07T06:49:33Z")
> [@starwarsfreek42](#): > > Dude, this isn’t my new world view. It came up in the thread, somebody wanted to discuss it. End of story. So… you brought up a proposal, and now you’re not happy because some people disagree with it? Then why have a discussion at all? > [@](#): > > My free birth control right now is contingent upon me submitting to a full physical, pap smear and an STD screening annually. If I don’t show up for that, I no longer get my shot. Is that coercion? It doesn’t bother me a bit because I understand that I have a choice in the matter. Of course nobody’s going to jail, don’t be ridiculous. The difference is that no one is withholding food and shelter from you for not showing up for that exam. The difference is that there are other means of birth control you could choose that don’t require all of that. Again, I ask you - if a woman is receiving direct deposit of her welfare money and she doesn’t show up for her monthly exam _what are the consequences?_ If there are none, why bother to show up? If there are some, what will they be? > [@](#): > > Of course men are involved in bringing children into the world. There is no pill or patch available for men, and although I’d support free vaesectomies, that’s way more invasive that a shot so nobody will go for it. Why NOT offer free vasectomies? There are men who get vasectomies, even pay for them out of pocket. Why do you assume no men will go for this when there are men walking around who have gone to some effort to get one? > [@](#): > > And let’s rephrase the bit about conceiving while on government assistance: if you followed through with your birth control and there was a failure, no problem. Stuff happens. If, however, you skip it, or are a week late getting your shot and come up pregnant, that’s not cool. But either way the woman is _forced_ to have the child? Again, _why not_ offer free abortions? Doesn’t abortion prevent unwanted children from being born? > [@](#): > > The schools ought to provide a uniform if they require one. I’ve never heard of a school that required uniforms that provided them. > [@](#): > > Maybe it is a logistical nightmare. I did say I’d just made it up, if you didn’t notice. Again, if you didn’t want anyone to point out the flaws in your proposal why did you put it in Great Debates? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Excuse me - they’re disqualified for “assistance” but they’re being given basic food/shelter/water? Isn’t that assistance? > > > > Frankly - guarantee of basic food and shelter is more than many people are getting TODAY from government assistance. > > It’s certainly more than I’m getting. So why is that a problem for you? It’s not a problem for me. In fact, I think everyone should have a minimum floor they aren’t allowed to sink beneath. The argument that some will cheat or swap their benefits for drugs doesn’t hold water as far as I’m concerned - such people will cheat or break the law _no matter what_. > [@](#): > > Um… we’re not? Do tell. No, we’re not. Any nation that leaves 1 in 6 people out of the health care system does not deserve to be called civilized. And that’s just one example. > [@](#): > > Yes, but with far fewer welfare kids being born. Again, your assumption is that ALL children on welfare were born poor. Well, I have two nephews currently on welfare but they weren’t poor until they were 14 and 16. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > In other words, food pantries and soup kitchens. Of course, if you’re so poor as to have lost your home good luck cooking “bulk” items like beans without a stove… > > Didn’t I say shelter was included even for those who disqualified for things like pell and unemployment? “Shelter” does not guarantee access to the cooking facilities required to process bulk foods like beans into edible meals. > [@](#): > > Because the radio is an excellent source of quality information about the unemployment rate. How is it less reliable than, say, TV or newspapers? This wasn’t some whackjob talk radio host, it was a news report. > [@](#): > > The hypothetical plan here isn’t set in stone, we can add free abortions if you like. Simmer down, why don’t cha? Again - why did you post the proposal unless you wanted to discuss it? And while for YOU this is an academic exercise I’m trying to support two people and looking for work while scrabbling to get enough money in to keep the lights on. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Which does squat if employers aren’t hiring. > > And helps tremendously if they are. Does it hurt anything if they aren’t? You’re telling people that they will be temporarily sterilized if they don’t get job training and they don’t look for a job… but even if they do everything right and still don’t get hired because there are more people looking for work than work available then… tough luck, you’re _still_ having to show up for a shot if you want assistance in _surviving_ until you do land a job. So sorry, you did everything right but tough luck, we’re going forcibly modify your body chemistry and you’ll submit to it if you want a roof over your head and food to eat. And you don’t see anything coercive or wrong about that? > [@](#): > > I’m not a loan officer. My in-laws have several loans and they don’t have shit for collateral. Yes, we see how well that worked out for the housing market… > [@](#): > > There must be some option. And if there isn’t, who says they can’t wait till they get a job and are eligible for a pell grant again? So… someone needs job training to get a job, and they can’t get a job until they get that training, but they can’t get a loan for the training until they can get the job they can’t get without training… you don’t see a problem here? > [@](#): > > Until last September I was working two jobs and going to school and caring for 9 rescued animals in my own house. Why are you taking on animals to care for when you should be concentrating on your education? Who cared for those animals while you were at your two jobs and going to school? > [@](#): > > I’m still not living comfortably, but I’m not depending on anybody but myself, either. You have loans, yes? You’re living at least partly on loans? Then you’re not paying your own way. Being independent means being able to pay your bills without borrowing all the time. > [@](#): > > Here, minimum wage is $6.55. That X 40 = $262. Yes. Before taxes. > [@](#): > > If you make that in a week, then in a month that’s $1048. Since I fall into a higher tax bracket and have more taken from my check, this pretty close to what I come home with after taxes. If you can’t make rent, utilities, gas, and food on that, you’re doing something wrong. Yes. Before taxes. Do you think that people on minimum wage _don’t_ have taxes withheld? Let’s assume that 20% of the check goes into taxes and other such requirements (not out of line with my experience). That’s about $838 a month net to actually live on. With rents on one-bedroom apartments in my area running about $700/month on average that makes living on $838/month difficult, yes? Because that rent amount _doesn’t_ include utilities. Or food. Or gas/mass transit fares. Or health insurance (usually not provided with minimum wage jobs). Or clothes. Or toothpaste. OK, get a roommate, right? Split the rent so you’re paying $350 and crammed into a one-bedroom apartment. Assuming $100/week for food (based on food stamps) that brings your shelter/food costs up to $750 a month out of your $838 net leaving just $88 for everything else. Utilities, phone, transportation, clothing… And, oh yes - _student loan payments_ 25 years ago mine were $82 a month, I can only imagine they’ve gone up since then. Oh, yeah. Lavish lifestyle. > [@](#): > > Hell, my whole life so far has consisted of hard times, I do everything right, and yet I can remember a week last summer I went without lights because I couldn’t afford to buy any light bulbs. Another week it was toilet paper. (It’s really annoying to take like 6 showers a day.) Bad things happen to everybody, and there’s a sytem in place to take care of us when it does. It’s a piss-poor system and I’d argue that no, all too frequently it _doesn’t_ take care of people who need help. Sure, I did everything right, too - went to college, had a nice job, married a man who owned a business and thus had an income. We even avoided debt, lived within our means, and had savings for hard times. Except life happened, he _can’t_ work anymore, we had to liquidate the business, I lost my nice job (along with our health insurance - uninsured with chronic health problems and disability is double or triple suckage) and now we’re struggling. And told we _don’t_ qualify for help. > [@](#): > > It’s just that, in my humble opinion, if you aren’t supporting yourself by your own means you shouldn’t feel that you have the right to bring someone else into the world to either suffer with you or be supported by the rest of society. So you think forcibly sterilizing women is the answer? Are you seriously OK with that? I just find it baffling that a woman who seems to value independence is so willing to surrender her body and those of other women to the government. Again, your underlying assumption is _once on welfare always on welfare_. Wouldn’t a system that genuinely gets people to independence be preferable to one that sterilizes people rather than getting them on their feet? Having children is not the cause of poverty (though it can be a contributing factor). Having a true social safety net would eliminate much of the suffering caused by poverty without the need to force people to submit to medical procedures. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2009, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/33 "2009-05-07T06:55:10Z")
> [@starwarsfreek42](#): > > I’ve worked forty hours a week since I was 18. I have a job now. It’s not a job in the field I’m studying, but it pays the bills. Why would you assume that just because I’m a college student I’m not working? I have no rude awakenings in my future, but thanks for the concern. Yes, you do have some rude awakenings. When I was in college and working my butt off both in class and at a job I thought I understood how things worked, but I was wrong. You are still a bit protected while a student. Once you’re out in the real world, though, things get a lot tougher. It because harder to get a job because all those jobs quietly reserved for students are no longer open to you. More will be expected of you, now that you’re not a student. Getting health insurance will suddenly be a lot harder. Various forms of assistance open to college students will be closed to you. > [@](#): > > I also never said that education would fix everything. Please read more carefully, or at least refrain from misrepresenting my views. I didn’t claim you said that - I am, however, disagreeing with you. I think your proposal is poorly thought out. You did not adequately account for various consequences of your sweeping proposals. I am not misrepresenting your views, I am disagreeing with your views, some of which I find morally repugnant. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2009, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/34 "2009-05-07T06:57:29Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > The right to procreate is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment [2]. So a law seeking to condition welfare benefits on a person giving up the right to procreate would be unconstitutional. > > [2] Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639 (1974). IANAL but I read both the Fourteenth Amendment and Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. LaFleur and I am not seen anything in there about the right to procreate. Can you point me to it? Also, is this right to procreate a right to do so whenever and whereever the person wants to, no matter who pays for it? Or is it OK to _temporarily_ deny the right to procreate while being supported by the tax payer? Also in general, WRT to there not being jobs for the poor to get, judging that by current conditions isn’t exactly looking at the average. OTOH, I imagine most of the folks complaining here about the lack of jobs are not looking for low wage, entry level jobs which is what poor folk are usually more willing to take. Have things changed so much in the 25 or so years since I was poor and working 2-3 jobs? I never had any trouble getting them. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2009, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/35 "2009-05-07T07:05:42Z")
Yes, at least in my area, things have change that much. Although, as I mentioned, I am currently working two jobs (though one of them looks like it’s about over) for most of the past two years I have had trouble getting even minimum wage/entry level work. I, of course, want MORE than that but I will certainly settle for that for the present as I need to keep money coming in. This is an unusual circumstance - for the prior 25 years I had never had a problem finding a job in a matter of weeks (usually a matter of _days_, to be honest) but _right now_ yes, it really does appear to be that bad. None of my prior successful fall-back plans worked. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2009, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/36 "2009-05-07T07:15:07Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > IANAL but I read both the Fourteenth Amendment and Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. LaFleur and I am not seen anything in there about the right to procreate. Can you point me to it? The Fourteenth Amendment states that no state shall “deprive any person of . . . liberty . . . without due process of law.” What is meant by liberty? A whole array of fundamental rights. Among them are most of those rights protected by the Bill of Rights. That’s why a state is subject to the First Amendment even though it only restricts Congress. But, according to the Supreme Court, it also includes other fundamental liberties. As the court states in LaFleur, “Freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. . . . there is a right ‘to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.’ By acting to penalize the pregnant teacher for deciding to bear a child, overly restrictive maternity leave regulations can constitute a heavy burden on the exercise of these protected freedoms.” Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974) (citations omitted). In other words, the decision to bear a child is a protected freedom under the liberty section of Fourteenth Amendment due process. This concept of the liberty clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extending to rights not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution is not without controversy. But it is clearly settled Supreme Court jurisprudence. > [@curlcoat](#): > > Also, is this right to procreate a right to do so whenever and whereever the person wants to, no matter who pays for it? Or is it OK to _temporarily_ deny the right to procreate while being supported by the tax payer? As a society, we choose to help provide for kids with impoverished parents. But the fact that we choose to do so does not give us the power to tell women that they cannot have children if they will not be able to provide for them. Our only choice is to help the women who have kids or not provide the benefits at all. We cannot use the benefits as a means of achieving what could not constitutionally be done directly by law. The fact that the burdening of the right is temporary does not save the burden from being unconstitutional. It is constitutional to only provide welfare up to a certain level. For example, you could say that welfare would be provided on a sliding scale up to five kids, but after than the payment remains the same. This is (at least for constitutional purposes) different from conditioning welfare altogether on whether a person has a child. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2009, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/37 "2009-05-07T07:19:15Z")
You dudes do know that under the new rules, Welfare in the US is limited to a maximum of 5 years? > **[Welfare](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_(financial_aid)#Welfare_in_the_United_States)** > > Welfare, or commonly social welfare, is a type of government support intended to ensure that members of a society can meet basic human needs such as food and shelter. Social security may either be synonymous with welfare,\[a\] or refer specifically to social insurance programs which provide support only to those who have previously contributed (e.g. most pension systems), as opposed to social assistance programs which provide support on the basis of need alone (e.g. most disability benefits). Mor... ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2009, 7:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/38 "2009-05-07T07:23:55Z")
You need to cut back on the hyperbole and read before you post… > [@Broomstick](#): > > Again, I ask you - if a woman is receiving direct deposit of her welfare money and she doesn’t show up for her monthly exam _what are the consequences?_ If there are none, why bother to show up? If there are some, what will they be? Obviously, she would lose her benefits. > [@](#): > > Why NOT offer free vasectomies? There are men who get vasectomies, even pay for them out of pocket. Why do you assume no men will go for this when there are men walking around who have gone to some effort to get one? I don’t think she is assuming no men would go for it, I think she is reacting to the freak out her to the much less invasive suggestion of a Depo shot or IUD. > [@](#): > > But either way the woman is _forced_ to have the child? Again, _why not_ offer free abortions? Doesn’t abortion prevent unwanted children from being born? Do you really think the US government would ever offer free abortions? It would be nice, but I don’t see it ever happening. > [@](#): > > No, we’re not. Any nation that leaves 1 in 6 people out of the health care system does not deserve to be called civilized. And that’s just one example. We aren’t debating your personal hot button here ya know. > [@](#): > > Again, your assumption is that ALL children on welfare were born poor. That isn’t what she said - “welfare kids being born” meaning kids born to someone on welfare. > [@](#): > > And while for YOU this is an academic exercise I’m trying to support two people and looking for work while scrabbling to get enough money in to keep the lights on. Which is only applicable if you plan to have a child while on welfare. > [@](#): > > You’re telling people that they will be temporarily sterilized if they don’t get job training and they don’t look for a job… but even if they do everything right and still don’t get hired because there are more people looking for work than work available then… tough luck, you’re _still_ having to show up for a shot if you want assistance in _surviving_ until you do land a job. So sorry, you did everything right but tough luck, we’re going forcibly modify your body chemistry and you’ll submit to it if you want a roof over your head and food to eat. And you don’t see anything coercive or wrong about that? Do you see anything coercive about the government requiring taxpayers to send money to support people having babies while they are on welfare? Do you think it is a good idea for babies to be born into welfare? What is so bloody horrible about telling people they have to be responsible and delay having children until _they_ can support them? > [@](#): > > Why are you taking on animals to care for when you should be concentrating on your education? Who cared for those animals while you were at your two jobs and going to school? Unlike children, animals can be left home alone for a few hours at a time you know… :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > You have loans, yes? You’re living at least partly on loans? Then you’re not paying your own way. Being independent means being able to pay your bills without borrowing all the time. Huh? How many US adults aren’t carrying a mortgage/car payments/credit card debt? > [@](#): > > Oh, yeah. Lavish lifestyle. What’s your point? That people shouldn’t be trying to make a living on a minimum wage job? That people who live off of a small amount of money, such as a welfare check, don’t have a great quality of life? > [@](#): > > So you think forcibly sterilizing women is the answer? It’s not sterilization! It’s birth control. > [@](#): > > Wouldn’t a system that genuinely gets people to independence be preferable to one that sterilizes people rather than getting them on their feet? Having children is not the cause of poverty (though it can be a contributing factor). Having a true social safety net would eliminate much of the suffering caused by poverty without the need to force people to submit to medical procedures. We cannot afford your ideal “true social safety net” so we have to work with what we have. And while having children will not automatically cause poverty, they are extremely expensive and you can’t send them back when you have a financial crisis. So, if someone on welfare doesn’t currently have children, they are much more likely to be able to dig themselves out of that hole - those who prefer children over getting above poverty can make that choice on their own dime rather than the taxpayer’s dollar. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2009, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/39 "2009-05-07T10:42:54Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Again, I ask you - if a woman is receiving direct deposit of her welfare money and she doesn’t show up for her monthly exam what are the consequences? If there are none, why bother to show up? If there are some, what will they be? > > Obviously, she would lose her benefits. Yes, suck the money back out of her account and cut her off entirely, I suppose… > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Why NOT offer free vasectomies? There are men who get vasectomies, even pay for them out of pocket. Why do you assume no men will go for this when there are men walking around who have gone to some effort to get one? > > I don’t think she is assuming no men would go for it, I think she is reacting to the freak out her to the much less invasive suggestion of a Depo shot or IUD. A shot of Depro-Provero can’t be removed once given, it has to wear off. It, and an IUD, are most certainly invasive. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > But either way the woman is forced to have the child? Again, why not offer free abortions? Doesn’t abortion prevent unwanted children from being born? > > Do you really think the US government would ever offer free abortions? It would be nice, but I don’t see it ever happening. I don’t see it happening either, but we are talking hypotheticals here. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > No, we’re not. Any nation that leaves 1 in 6 people out of the health care system does not deserve to be called civilized. And that’s just one example. > > We aren’t debating your personal hot button here ya know. Don’t know if you know, but since I managed to get insurance for me and mine last November it’s no longer so personal for me. It’s still barbaric and inhumane. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > You’re telling people that they will be temporarily sterilized if they don’t get job training and they don’t look for a job… but even if they do everything right and still don’t get hired because there are more people looking for work than work available then… tough luck, you’re still having to show up for a shot if you want assistance in surviving until you do land a job. So sorry, you did everything right but tough luck, we’re going forcibly modify your body chemistry and you’ll submit to it if you want a roof over your head and food to eat. And you don’t see anything coercive or wrong about that? > > Do you see anything coercive about the government requiring taxpayers to send money to support people having babies while they are on welfare? Do you think it is a good idea for babies to be born into welfare? What is so bloody horrible about telling people they have to be responsible and delay having children until they can support them? You can TELL people to delay having children, you can’t FORCE them, at least not in this country. Are babies born in this country citizens? Yes? Then the government has some obligation to see to their needs, just as much as it does the needs of adult citizens requiring aid. It’s not to support the parents, it’s to support the children. While I don’t think being born to poor parents is a good thing I don’t think it’s so horrible that death or non-existence is perferable. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Why are you taking on animals to care for when you should be concentrating on your education? Who cared for those animals while you were at your two jobs and going to school? > > Unlike children, animals can be left home alone for a few hours at a time you know… If she’s going to school and working two jobs she’s gone more than a “few” hours a day. Then there’s feeding and caring for them. NINE animals! A cat, maybe two or some tropical fish but _nine_ animals? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > You have loans, yes? You’re living at least partly on loans? Then you’re not paying your own way. Being independent means being able to pay your bills without borrowing all the time. > > Huh? How many US adults aren’t carrying a mortgage/car payments/credit card debt? Well, for starters I’m not. Haven’t had any of that for 3 years. Haven’t had credit card debt for over 10 now. My husband doesn’t. My one sister doesn’t - my other one is still paying of medical school. My father doesn’t have any of those. Let’s see, that’s 3 out of 4 in my family. And it’s one thing to borrow money for a house or a vehicle - you’re using it to purchase an expensive item. As long as you can make regular payments you’re good. But while students loans do pay for expensive education she’s not making the payments yet since she’s still in school. If all she is doing is putting that loan money towards tuition and books fine, but too many kids these days use the loan money for basic living expenses. If you’re relying on borrowed money for food you aren’t doing well. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > So you think forcibly sterilizing women is the answer? > > It’s not sterilization! It’s birth control. Hormonal birth control like a shot or the pill is temporary, reversible sterilization. You can’t take it off like a condom, you have to wait for it to wear off. It is one thing for a woman to freely choose it, quite another to have it forced on her. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Wouldn’t a system that genuinely gets people to independence be preferable to one that sterilizes people rather than getting them on their feet? Having children is not the cause of poverty (though it can be a contributing factor). Having a true social safety net would eliminate much of the suffering caused by poverty without the need to force people to submit to medical procedures. > > We cannot afford your ideal “true social safety net” so we have to work with what we have. Why not? Why can’t we afford it? Why can’t we have more of one? Many European countries have much better social safety nets and they haven’t imploded, why can’t we? > [@](#): > > So, if someone on welfare doesn’t currently have children, they are much more likely to be able to dig themselves out of that hole - those who prefer children over getting above poverty can make that choice on their own dime rather than the taxpayer’s dollar. By that argument if a person is poor enough to be on welfare we should put current their kids in foster care since said parent(s) obviously aren’t doing well enough to support themselves, much less a child. Not that I would advocate that, but that’s where your argument leads. In fact, that used to be done routinely in this country but we stopped the practice several generations ago. ---
**Author:** ![flickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7bcc69/32.png) [@flickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flickster)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2009, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/40 "2009-05-07T11:57:58Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Well, to be fair, that would also include everyone collecting social security, correct? Because we don’t want senior citizens blowing their monthly checks on… blow. Right? > > It _is_ a form of government assistance, after all. Any granny who objects can just get off her lazy butt and get a job, right? Requiring drug testing would actually go hand in hand with preparing aid recipients for the job search, as most jobs require pre-employment drug screening anyway. Comparing welfare and social security is still like trying to compare apples to oranges [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620.md?page=3)