# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/161 "2009-05-14T04:30:06Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > I don’t think it would be tens of millions. More like 5 million or so, a wild guestimation based on [census numbers on women who receive WIC.](http://www.census.gov/apsd/www/statbrief/sb95_29.pdf) Still, that’s a lot of kids to put in “boarding schools.” Remember, we are only talking about those children born while the mother is on welfare. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/162 "2009-05-14T04:33:39Z")
> [@Shakester](#): > > All this talk of encouraging/forcing people to work instead of being on welfare is based on the idea that there is work available for everyone. There isn’t. > > Western countries have been moving manufacturing (and any other industry they can do it to) to poorer countries where wages are low and there are few (or no) worker health and safety laws. Those jobs no longer exist in western countries. Try getting a factory job - there are dozens (sometimes hundreds) of applicants for every position. > > We now have a large underclass of people who have no chance. People for whom there are **no** opportunities. The jobs that these people would have had in the 50s or 60s or 70s are **gone**. There is nothing to replace them. > > You can spout as much happy right-wing bull as you like about how these people should be forced to find work - there **isn’t** any work for people in that position. It’s not like they’re turning down work because they prefer to be unemployed, it’s that there is no work for a large percentage of society. Which is why, when parents say they are creating tomorrows workers by having children and all that happy right-wing bull, I laugh. It’s nothing new that we have a portion of our society under- and un-employed and why the government should quit paying women to have children. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Fight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/90ced4/32.png) [@Cat\_Fight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Fight)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/163 "2009-05-14T04:34:19Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > You mean like the daycares that so many mothers use these days? Except… all day and night. I’m honestly curious how you envision this working – would there be caretakers for groups of children? How would babies and toddlers be housed? Would they be up for adoption by other couples, or kept in purgatory 'til their 18th birthday on the off chance their birth mothers clean up their acts? And, just to nip this in the bud before we go another four pages – has this all just been a slippery slope towards an argument for sterilizing the poor? Because it sure seems to be headed that way, in baby steps. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/164 "2009-05-14T04:41:31Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Well, considering it’s been at least a day, it wasn’t all that quick but that isn’t the point. You wanted to know if that is the kind of people “they” are and I wanted to know what “they” you were talking about. And reading your own one sentence post which my question was a response to should make it perfectly clear. You mentioned “they” twice in that sentence. I’m not sure how that was confusing, but what the hell. It doesn’t matter. ---
**Author:** ![starwarsfreek42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e56c9b/32.png) [@starwarsfreek42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/starwarsfreek42)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/165 "2009-05-14T04:46:35Z")
Hey, I’ve always thought people ought to have licences to have chidren. You have to have a license to drive a car. You have to have a license to own a pet. You have to have a license to catch a fish. Why shouldn’t we require a license for those who want to be responsible for raising another human being? I would fully support forced sterilization for criminals too (the violent kind, not the traffic violation kind), and legal euthanasia programs for those who really want it. Isn’t death with a needle preferable, since the person is likely to shoot themselves in the head anyway? Actually, don’t mind me. I don’t want to derail the whole thread. ETA: sorry, I meant to quote\*\* Cat Fight’s\*\* last post here. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/166 "2009-05-14T04:48:57Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > You mean like the daycares that so many mothers use these days? You really are bad at math, aren’t you? Children are in daycare for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, on business days. Orphanages are 24/7/365. If you can’t suss out why that’s not the same thing, use your fingers and toes. > [@](#): > > I didn’t say anything about them getting a better education, tho it would probably be far more likely that they would actually go to school, and finish high school. If it was really well run, it would also be less likely the girls would be pregnant at 14, they would most likely be better fed and so better able to absorb an education. Wait, I thought were WERE feeding kids who were on welfare, and that was a problem, because you don’t want to pay for it. Poor children already receive 2 free meals a day in the public schools. Children who are under 16 who do not go to school are already put on probation, and can be taken away from their parents if they persist in truancy, so that provision for school attendance is already in place. I also have to wonder if you read any of the cites I offered. Children who are removed from their mothers as infants will be LESS likely to thrive, LESS likely to absorb an education, LESS likely to be highly functioning members of society. Removing infants from otherwise loving maternal care is a BAD idea for some very sound reasons, no matter how satisfying it might feel to you. Unless you can offer cites to counter mine, I feel your argument has been adequately refuted and you can stop offering it as a solution that a reasonable society would ever consider implementing. > [@](#): > > Kind of interesting that you keep calling them orphanages, when the children wouldn’t be orphans but wards of the state. Mommy gets a job and gets off welfare, she can have the kids back, just like it is done now with foster care. You know, where kids are warehoused now? Orphans are wards of the state. Those words are synonymous. In your scenario children are hostages, kept in a pawn shop until Mom can redeem their ticket. Removing children from their parents for the “crime” of being born while their mother is on welfare is punitive-- it’s harmful and cruel. If you can’t see why it’s both scientifically unsound AND morally repugnant, then likely nothing anyone says is going to reach you. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/167 "2009-05-14T04:51:05Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Which is why, when parents say they are creating tomorrows workers by having children and all that happy right-wing bull, I laugh. It’s nothing new that we have a portion of our society under- and un-employed and why the government should quit paying women to have children. Cite that the government is “paying women to have children”? Please offer evidence that women are receiving enough money for an additional child to even support that child, much less qualify as “being paid” for it, or retract the comment. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/168 "2009-05-14T04:59:42Z")
> [@](#): > > **curlcoat** : You mean like the daycares that so many mothers use these days? And fathers. For every mother who uses a daycare, a father is also using a daycare – whether he is aware of it or contributes money toward it or not. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/169 "2009-05-14T05:03:34Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > And fathers. For every mother who uses a daycare, a father is also using a daycare – whether he is aware of it or contributes money toward it or not. What’s ironic about the snideness with which daycare is being referred to is that, without daycare, what would these mothers and fathers do-- not work? And… go on welfare. Seems that the only option that would satisfy curlcoat is if people just stopped having children altogether, or only the independently wealthy had children. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 10:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/170 "2009-05-14T10:40:50Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Remember, we are only talking about those children born while the mother is on welfare. Thaaaat’s right. We’re talking about breaking up families. Keeping the first born and dumping the rest onto…what’s that? Society’s doorstep? That will be paid for with what? Curlcoat’s husband’s tax dollars? This is an awesome idea! They’re going to adopt ALL the poor children! And we thought they hated them! ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/171 "2009-05-14T13:07:26Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Well, I’d like to think a “free” education would be enough, too, but a slight bonus for, say, a 3.5 or 4.0 grade point might encourage greater efforts on the part of the students. Seems to me if the state is paying for the education the state has some interest in maximizing the results. Doesn’t have to be a HUGE reward - a token amount would be sufficient. Heck, a book of coupons for McDonald’s could function as motivation for some people. Nothing wrong with recognizing someone’s hard work. I can’t see it. We’re talking about adults being responsible I think. If society is willing to help support them while they go to school that should be enough without asking tax payers to shell out more. IMO that’s part of the line between opportunity and entitlement. If you’re lucky enough to live in a society that helps you then your responsibility is to do your best. If you succeed great for everyone. > [@](#): > > However, if an “extra bonus” _encourages_ responsible behavior why do you object to it? Do you object to car insurance companies giving reduced rates to good drivers with clean records? Do you object to people who pay their bills on time getting better interest rates on a loan? There are a LOT of incentives out there to encourage people to be “responsible citizens”, why should that suddenly end if you become poor? If anything, we should provide _more_ encouragement to people on the lower socio-economic levels than we do to the middle-class or wealthy. We should try and take any roadblocks out of their way. Let’s have decent schools available and access to loans or other programs to help pay for college until they’re out and working. Let’s have help available if they fall on hard times but, we expect them to work hard and do their best and contribute back into society so others can have these same opportunities. If you haven’t yet read [“Up from Slavery” by Booker T Washington](http://www.bartleby.com/1004/) These folks worked their asses off for years to build a life they could be proud off. They did what it took to take advantage of the opportunity they had. My objection is that the added bonus makes the opportunity and the help they are getting seem/feel more like an entitlement and treats adults like children. Sadly once people get used to something being their they start to think it’s their due. Adults need to learn that’s not the case. Nobody owes you anything and opportunities fade away. Life can be hard. If hard times befall you and your society is willing to help it’s not because they owe it to you. It’s because you’re lucky enough to live in a society that helps each other. With that comes an obligation to work hard and mitigate the expense and contribute back into society. IOW, if society is paying for dinner you don’t “deserve” an extra cookie for eating all your vegetables. You’re dam lucky to have them. Your examples of insurance rates and lower interest rates are not comparable. When you see a insurance company pay my insurance bill \*and \* rewards my driving record by lowering my rates let me know. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2009, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/172 "2009-05-15T23:14:13Z")
> [@Cat\_Fight](#): > > Except… all day and night. I’m honestly curious how you envision this working – would there be caretakers for groups of children? How would babies and toddlers be housed? Would they be up for adoption by other couples, or kept in purgatory 'til their 18th birthday on the off chance their birth mothers clean up their acts? The logistics of number of caretakers, housing and all of that would depend on the laws that we already have that govern daycares. I don’t see this being much different, except that the babies and toddlers live there rather than go home at night. Up for adoption would also follow current laws - I believe that a child isn’t available for adoption unless the mother signs off or a court forces her to? I like how you call this purgatory and then go on to talk about birth mothers cleaning up their act. How much worse do you suppose living in a full time daycare would be than living with a mother that needs her act cleaned up? > [@](#): > > And, just to nip this in the bud before we go another four pages – has this all just been a slippery slope towards an argument for sterilizing the poor? Because it sure seems to be headed that way, in baby steps. I am for sterilizing a lot of people, but being poor is not one of the reasons. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2009, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/173 "2009-05-15T23:36:18Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > You mean like the daycares that so many mothers use these days? An orphanage is no more like a daycare than being enslaved is like holding a 9-to-5 job. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2009, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/174 "2009-05-15T23:44:42Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > An orphanage is no more like a daycare than being enslaved is like holding a 9-to-5 job. I love how curlcoat is studiously ignoring the cites I offered that putting children in orphanages in infancy will not achieve her stated goal of making them more productive citizens, at all. I am still in GD, right? We are trying to have a fact-based discussion, aren’t we? I would love for her to try to debunk my assertion that orphanages do not solve the problem of poverty. Comparing them to daycare is, as you’ve stated, patently ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2009, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/175 "2009-05-16T01:10:28Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > You really are bad at math, aren’t you? Children are in daycare for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, on business days. Orphanages are 24/7/365. If you can’t suss out why that’s not the same thing, use your fingers and toes. Math has nothing to do with it. You said that having children in a group setting was warehousing them, and I asked you if that was the same thing they did in daycares. > [@](#): > > Wait, I thought were WERE feeding kids who were on welfare, and that was a problem, because you don’t want to pay for it. Poor children already receive 2 free meals a day in the public schools. Children who are under 16 who do not go to school are already put on probation, and can be taken away from their parents if they persist in truancy, so that provision for school attendance is already in place. We are more or less feeding children on welfare, tho the amount that they get doesn’t tend to buy really good food, plus we really have no idea whether or not all of the funds are actually used to feed the children. As for truants, seems like it is a much better idea to prevent that from happening in the first place rather than wait until a kid gets to that stage. > [@](#): > > I also have to wonder if you read any of the cites I offered. Children who are removed from their mothers as infants will be LESS likely to thrive, LESS likely to absorb an education, LESS likely to be highly functioning members of society. Removing infants from otherwise loving maternal care is a BAD idea for some very sound reasons, no matter how satisfying it might feel to you. Unless you can offer cites to counter mine, I feel your argument has been adequately refuted and you can stop offering it as a solution that a reasonable society would ever consider implementing. No I didn’t bother to read your cites, but if they are like all the others it isn’t removal from the _mother_, it’s the lack of nurturing that can cause those things. If was just the removal from the birth mother, all adoptees would be poorly functioning members of society. > [@](#): > > Orphans are wards of the state. Those words are synonymous. Huh. Per [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) an orphan is “a child who has lost both parents through death, or, less commonly, one parent.” and a ward is “a person, esp. a minor, who has been legally placed under the care of a guardian or a court.” > [@](#): > > In your scenario children are hostages, kept in a pawn shop until Mom can redeem their ticket. Removing children from their parents for the “crime” of being born while their mother is on welfare is punitive-- it’s harmful and cruel. Is it? Or is it taking babies from people that don’t have enough money for themselves much less a child(ren), who may be chronically unemployed due to drug problems, who may be teenagers booted out by uncaring parents actually better for the child? ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2009, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/176 "2009-05-16T01:36:46Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > Cite that the government is “paying women to have children”? Please offer evidence that women are receiving enough money for an additional child to even support that child, much less qualify as “being paid” for it, or retract the comment. :rolleyes: Did I say that they were getting paid to support a child? No. What they do get is their maternity visits and delivery paid for _having_ a child. Just one more reason why women blither into having children they cannot afford to raise. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2009, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/177 "2009-05-16T01:40:25Z")
> [@Rubystreak](#): > > What’s ironic about the snideness with which daycare is being referred to is that, without daycare, what would these mothers and fathers do-- not work? And… go on welfare. Seems that the only option that would satisfy curlcoat is if people just stopped having children altogether, or only the independently wealthy had children. It would be nice if people didn’t have children until they could actually afford them. However, my point about the daycares was that it doesn’t seem to be a problem for people to leave their children in a group setting all day every weekday when it’s called daycare, but when it is taking children out of a bad situation it’s called warehousing. Why is that? ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2009, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/178 "2009-05-16T01:54:20Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > It would be nice if people didn’t have children until they could actually afford them. However, my point about the daycares was that it doesn’t seem to be a problem for people to leave their children in a group setting all day every weekday when it’s called daycare, but when it is taking children out of a bad situation it’s called warehousing. Why is that? 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2009, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/179 "2009-05-16T03:42:38Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Math has nothing to do with it. You said that having children in a group setting was warehousing them, and I asked you if that was the same thing they did in daycares. 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. > [@](#): > > No I didn’t bother to read your cites, but if they are like all the others it isn’t removal from the _mother_, it’s the lack of nurturing that can cause those things. If was just the removal from the birth mother, all adoptees would be poorly functioning members of society. 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. 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. 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. > [@](#): > > Huh. Per [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) an orphan is “a child who has lost both parents through death, or, less commonly, one parent.” and a ward is “a person, esp. a minor, who has been legally placed under the care of a guardian or a court.” 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. Are you OK with that? Most people wouldn’t be simply because the parents don’t have enough money. > [@](#): > > Is it? Or is it taking babies from people that don’t have enough money for themselves much less a child(ren), who may be chronically unemployed due to drug problems, who may be teenagers booted out by uncaring parents actually better for the child? 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. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2009, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620/180 "2009-05-16T03:47:17Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > :rolleyes: Did I say that they were getting paid to support a child? No. What they do get is their maternity visits and delivery paid for _having_ a child. Just one more reason why women blither into having children they cannot afford to raise. 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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/welfare-as-requested-in-the-kid-haters-thread/495620.md?page=10)