Welfare (as requested in the kid haters thread)

[Rubystreak]

@curlcoat

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?

Where are you getting 10 hours a day? The average work day is 8 hours. Then you have the whole weekend, holidays, and the kid would be in school after a few years and not with the parents during those hours anyway. I’m really not sure why you’re being so obtuse about the difference between daycare and permanent removal from the home. The difference is not ephemeral; it’s quantifiable.

OK, just so I don’t get accused of doing something I’m not - do you consider a daycare an institutional setting?

Have you ever been to a daycare? What about an orphanage? There is a big difference. One is an institutional setting, one is not.

It was you that claimed that all sorts of awful things happen to infants who are removed from their mothers, not me.

It’s not just a claim. It’s a claim backed by evidence. This makes it superior to your claim until you come up with evidence.

And I’m saying that raising a child on what the government will pay a woman is abusive and probably neglectful.

Cite? Really, if this is such a problem, you should be able to prove that children whose mothers are on welfare are just as damaged as children raised in orphanages. There must be ample documentation, if this is such a problem.

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,

THIS is what I object to. The idea that being poor or being on welfare means that you aren’t a loving mother. It’s as if you believe that being poor negates your ability to love and care for your children. I believe that’s false.

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.

All you are seeing is strung out crackhead moms with brown babies who turn into thugs. I think your vision of things is as wrong as you think mine is. I also very much doubt you actually care about those babies one whit.

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.

All children are heathens who should be taken away from their mannerless mothers and put in goverment-run orphanages where you will oversee their manners and education. That seems to be the only thing that would satisfy you. And frankly, if your next post doesn’t contain some meaningful cites, this conversation is over, because you’re just making things up now.

Uh, I would find cites for an idea I have had where?

The same place I found the cites for my premise. Do some research, or just admit that you don’t have any basis for what you’re saying other than your own bizarre ideas about how society should be run, which are not based on any real world facts.

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?

Yes, but I very much doubt that you do, or you’d find it a lot harder to judge. Sure, some people are taking advantage of every system that exists. The few that do make news, and people think they are a representative sample. I would like you to offer some proof that any sort of majority of people are a) on welfare long-term, and b) are abusing the system. If you can’t prove those things, nor any of your other claims, we can’t have a meaningful conversation, because then it’s just a bugbear that you have constructed in your mind to justify your resentment of people on welfare.

[flonks]

Rubystreak, it happened to her, and she will not admit that it things can be different in other families…

[Rubystreak]

@flonks

Rubystreak, it happened to her, and she will not admit that it things can be different in other families…

I’m waiting on some cites. Otherwise, I’m taking what cosmodan said to heart and viewing this particular topic as ridiculous and not worthy of a serious argument. Anecdote and intuition do not equal evidence. curlcoat needs to learn that GD is not the Pit. You can’t just make wild claims and then say, “But wherever could I find a cite?”

[RickJay]

@curlcoat

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?

That’s a rather gigantic difference, you know. If you don’t understand that, you are not equipped to debate the issue.

But you know, I’m willing to reconsider the general OP as long as we extend it, logically, to other things. For instance, anyone receiving government assistance of any kind should not be allowed to own pets. Why should I, the taxpayer, have to pay for someone’s dogs?

[cosmosdan]

@Rubystreak

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.

You saw it but you didn’t understand my response to him or you IMO.
flonks was the second poster to do what amounted to a drive by posting commenting in a self righteous way about questioning welfare rather than specifically addressing any point being discussed.
here it is.

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.

Nothing about kids right?Yes I see this as self righteous and said so in my response to him. Partly because it was the second of this type from someone. The first was,

Originally Posted by Stoneburg
I’m sorry but isn’t this whole welfare hysteria just a huge red herring? The welfare cost in relative numbers in the US is neglib… neig… really small. It seems like a case of picking on someone who can’t defend themself to score political points. Critisizing the stay-at-home-crack-mom rather than (for example) the huge spending on military, farm subsidising or corporate benefits.

The US already spends the least money relative to their budget on welfare of any western nation except Ireland (cite) but spends as much as the rest of the world put together on military. It strikes me as moralism of a quite unsavory kind to aim the boot at the unemployed and disenfrenchised,

as if even discussing it is morally questionable. It’s the knee jerk, “Oh my God you want to punish the poor” that irritates and strikes me as self righteous. First because it’s wrong. Second because discussing how to improve the welfare system is about helping the poor and society in general. What to do about the well off who are apparently evil and rubbing their hands together or military spending is a separate discussion. If someone wanted to comment on the repugnant idea of taking people’s children away they can mention that specifically rather than a general dis of anyone who criticizes welfare.

As I said, I’ve seen this type of reaction in every welfare thread I’ve been in and it annoys me so I expressed it.

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.

I see. I agree I should have clarified. That first sentence should have been separate. flonks had not mentioned kids and neither had I so I wasn’t sure why you even brought it up. It wasn’t relevant to my comment to him.

I meant the* whole thread* is a minor discussion on a board {just fact not criticism} so drive by postings with with a self righteous tone were ridiculous. Clear?

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.

I don’t see it as a mischaracterization since I’m referring *only *to the type of drive by postings I just gave examples of.Rather than actually participate and make a point and discuss details, it’s a generalized dising of anyone who thinks the welfare system sometimes enables abuse and can be improved. It bugs me and I say so, but it’s a minor issue and I have no interest in making a mountain out of a mole hill.

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 hope it’s clear now that they were **not **directed at you and just maybe you played a part in a misunderstanding. I was trying to explain my response to flonks which you commented on. I wasn’t talking about the content of your post because because I didn’t see any of that in his post.

Yeah, when you use words like vilify and pouring derision, I call that judging and exaggerating, since I was talking about one post to flonks and it wasn’t about you. Evidently we misunderstood each other.

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.

Evidently you saw a lot more in flonks post and mine than I did. I saw it as self righteous generalizing because of it’s lack of detail and drive by style so I expressed myself. I don’t call that jumping on anyone. You thought I was talking about your post when I was still talking about his and those like it. I’m sorry that wasn’t clear but I won’t take all the blame for that misunderstanding. I’m content to let it drop. I only meant to comment not hijack.

I suggest you relax a bit before you respond, because I think you’re overreacting bigtime.

So, your reaction is a considered opinion while mine is overreacting. I see. I’m relaxed. Let’s drop it.

[cosmosdan]

@flonks

That’s true. Our styles are different, though.

They are. I actually participated in this discussion.

Hey, we’ve expressed ourselves. No malice intended.

[flonks]

@cosmosdan

You saw it but you didn’t understand my response to him or you IMO.
flonks was the second poster to do what amounted to a drive by posting commenting in a self righteous way about questioning welfare rather than specifically addressing any point being discussed.

I’d say you are easily offended.

You don’t know whether I read the whole thread or not. It is not that long and I also read the whole 44 pages of the pit thread on children (which started this thread). I don’t know what you mean by drive by posting, but the fact that I do not spend 24h a day on the SDMB (yes, I have a life) and therefore do not post on the first page of each thread, does not mean that I did not read the thread before posting.

If my only contribution to this thread is that I think that there is no discussion since the problem does not exist, or only exists in the minds of some, then this IS a contribution, if you like it or not.

I never said that the discussion is ridiculous btw. I DO think that this kind of discussion should not be necessary. If our goal is be sure that our taxes are spent in the best way, then there are worthier goals than a couple of cases of welfare abuses which can’t be avoided if you want to have a safety net. And which cost us … approximately nothing/nada compared to the abuses at the other end of the pecking order.

Bernard Madoff

Enron

Cayman Islands

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html

[Sarahfeena]

I’m not a person who necessarily thinks that orphanages are the worst thing ever for children. I’m not even sure they wouldn’t be preferable to the foster system, if they were run right. However, I don’t think that being poor in and of itself is a legitimate reason to take children away from mothers. In my opinion (humble though it might be :)), the entire welfare system should be geared towards helping keep families together and helping them succeed. Separating mothers from their children doesn’t strike me as the right kind of encouragment.

[starwarsfreek42]

My understanding was that the only kids that would be taken away would be the ones concieved in violation of the stipulation about not having kids while on welfare. It would only be until the parents got back on their feet. I don’t think orphanages are necessarily evil, but they are expensive so doing it that way might actually be bad for the overall budget. A better solution would be for those kids not to be concieved in the first place.

[cosmosdan]

@flonks

I’d say you are easily offended.

I’m not. No more than you at least. You expressed and opinion and I expressed mine. It’s that simple. I didn’t rant , I merely commented, the same as you.

You don’t know whether I read the whole thread or not. It is not that long and I also read the whole 44 pages of the pit thread on children (which started this thread).

You’re right I didn’t know, but given the content of your post it really didn’t matter if you read carefully, skimmed, or whatever. I responded to your words regardless of how you came to them. I did notice you posted quite a bit in the other thread but IMO that has nothing to do with your comments in this one, and that’s what I responded to.

I don’t know what you mean by drive by posting, but the fact that I do not spend 24h a day on the SDMB (yes, I have a life) and therefore do not post on the first page of each thread, does not mean that I did not read the thread before posting.

You have no reason to assume I thought that. I didn’t. A drive by posting, as I understand it, is a post by someone who does not participate in the thread but posts once or twice to make some, joke, snide comment, or point, without defending it. See, you didn’t actually address anything specific in the thread as if you wanted to join late. {which is fine} You made a somewhat goofy generalization about the thread in general.

If my only contribution to this thread is that I think that there is no discussion since the problem does not exist, or only exists in the minds of some, then this IS a contribution, if you like it or not.

I already said you’re free to express your opinion. I’m also free to express mine about your post. That’s how it works on a discussion board don’t ya know.

I never said that the discussion is ridiculous btw. I DO think that this kind of discussion should not be necessary. If our goal is be sure that our taxes are spent in the best way, then there are worthier goals than a couple of cases of welfare abuses which can’t be avoided if you want to have a safety net. And which cost us … approximately nothing/nada compared to the abuses at the other end of the pecking order.

I know. That’s the goofy self righteous part that I commented on. As I explained. This is a minor discussion on one of many discussion boards. These boards are filled with discussions that are not necessary aren’t they? To state the obvious as if it has some relevant meaning, is the ridiculous part. We didn’t actually think we were affecting national policy in any way. We were just talking. It’s like stopping by a thread about the common cold to dis them for not discussing cancer instead. WTF?
The thread was about welfare and the conversations were about suggested changes and if they would work or not. The thread was not about welfare abuse *compared *to anything else. Nobody claimed that welfare abuse was the worst thing ever. So, that type of comment especially in the tone it was offered is self righteous as well as irrelevant to the discussion. IMO.
Pointing out that welfare abuse is a minor financial concern to our overall budget might be a relevant fact. The inference that those who thought welfare could be changed and/or improved wanted to make the poor poorer and help the rich{even if out of ignorance} is a bullshit assumption which added to the overall sanctimony of your post.

Bernard Madoff

Enron

Cayman Islands

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html
[/QUOTE]

all these links are irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

I expressed myself and explained that expression. I have no interest in hijacking the thread further.

[Rubystreak]

@starwarsfreek42

My understanding was that the only kids that would be taken away would be the ones concieved in violation of the stipulation about not having kids while on welfare. It would only be until the parents got back on their feet. I don’t think orphanages are necessarily evil, but they are expensive so doing it that way might actually be bad for the overall budget.

They are harmful to children if the child is there for any length of time. That’s not my opinion, that’s a fact. It’s surprising to me that I have to keep saying it. If it were for a week or a month, maybe it wouldn’t be horrible, but that’s unlikely, isn’t it? Long term, you damage the kids and make them more likely to end up in poverty, even if your stated purpose is to help. Taking away infants from their loving but welfare-receiving mothers wouldn’t actually help. Time to move on to a different idea.

A better solution would be for those kids not to be concieved in the first place.

Are we talking about a fantasy world where everything is ideal and in conformity with your wishes, or the real world? In the real world, you can’t tell people when they can and cannot have children. I realize that is problematic and that you have major issues with it. The fact is it’s unworkable. That’s really the bottom line.

[curlcoat]

@Rubystreak

Where are you getting 10 hours a day? The average work day is 8 hours. Then you have the whole weekend, holidays, and the kid would be in school after a few years and not with the parents during those hours anyway. I’m really not sure why you’re being so obtuse about the difference between daycare and permanent removal from the home. The difference is not ephemeral; it’s quantifiable.

The 10 hours includes possible commute time, or if the parents have a job that goes longer than 8 hours a day. Such as the only person I happen to know who has kids, when they were young enough they were in daycare at least 10 hours a day.

Me obtuse? For one thing, none of this is “permanent removal from the home”, so you can start with that.

Have you ever been to a daycare? What about an orphanage? There is a big difference. One is an institutional setting, one is not.

OK, from that I am going to assume that you don’t consider daycares to be an institutional setting. No, I’ve never been to an orphanage but since that isn’t what I’m talking about here, I don’t see how that applies. You do realize that it is you not me that is pushing this “institutional setting” idea, right?

It’s not just a claim. It’s a claim backed by evidence. This makes it superior to your claim until you come up with evidence.

My “evidence” is that you are reading into these studies what you want to see. As far as I know, and certainly you haven’t shown otherwise, there are no studies that state that a baby must be raised by it’s mother. Those studies show that the baby must be nurtured, etc but it doesn’t have to be a specific person that does it.

Cite? Really, if this is such a problem, you should be able to prove that children whose mothers are on welfare are just as damaged as children raised in orphanages. There must be ample documentation, if this is such a problem.

I wouldn’t know if there is any documentation comparing children raised on welfare with those raised in orphanages since I am not interested in the latter. There doesn’t appear that there are any studies indicating how growing up on welfare affects children in the long term, which seems way overdue.

THIS is what I object to. The idea that being poor or being on welfare means that you aren’t a loving mother. It’s as if you believe that being poor negates your ability to love and care for your children.

You are aware that there is a big difference from merely being poor and being so bad off that you have to live on welfare? Good. Now, why do you suppose that a woman would be in such a condition that she must be taken care of by the government? Some reasons are a serious drug problem, extreme young age, mental problems, abuse. How good of a mother do you suppose these women are?

And frankly, if your next post doesn’t contain some meaningful cites, this conversation is over, because you’re just making things up now.

Hardly a loss since you cannot seem to discuss anything to do with children without getting highly emotional, rude and subject to twisting things around. As for my providing cites, since you are demanding ones that have nothing to do with what I am saying, I am certainly not going to waste my time.

Yes, but I very much doubt that you do, or you’d find it a lot harder to judge.

Ah. Because I don’t approve of people planning to raise children on welfare, you doubt that I know any extremely poor people. Interesting.

[curlcoat]

@flonks

Rubystreak, it happened to her, and she will not admit that it things can be different in other families…

That I grew up on welfare? No.

[curlcoat]

@RickJay

That’s a rather gigantic difference, you know. If you don’t understand that, you are not equipped to debate the issue.

What you don’t understand is that I am not advocating warehousing these children. What would be the point? They would end up being in worse shape and less likely to become productive members of society than if they were left where they were.

Those who are not equipped to debate any issue are those who jump to conclusions based on their emotional response to the subject.

But you know, I’m willing to reconsider the general OP as long as we extend it, logically, to other things. For instance, anyone receiving government assistance of any kind should not be allowed to own pets. Why should I, the taxpayer, have to pay for someone’s dogs?

You don’t.

[Rubystreak]

@curlcoat

Me obtuse? For one thing, none of this is “permanent removal from the home”, so you can start with that.

Is this a serious conversation? Do you think this would ever happen? So why are we even discussing it?

No, I’ve never been to an orphanage but since that isn’t what I’m talking about here, I don’t see how that applies. You do realize that it is you not me that is pushing this “institutional setting” idea, right?

Please describe in detail what you ARE talking about. Offer cites if possible.

My “evidence”

You have none.

is that you are reading into these studies what you want to see. As far as I know, and certainly you haven’t shown otherwise, there are no studies that state that a baby must be raised by it’s mother. Those studies show that the baby must be nurtured, etc but it doesn’t have to be a specific person that does it.

I never said the children needed to be raised by their mothers. Straw man, already addressed several times. Are you suggesting government employees will nurture the children better than their mothers will? Since you have offered nothing but snide replies to me, with no details of your own, I am providing them. I’ll stop now. Feel free to come up with some of your own ideas and scenarios and share them. We’re all very interested in what YOUR version of these “boarding houses” would be.

I wouldn’t know if there is any documentation comparing children raised on welfare with those raised in orphanages since I am not interested in the latter. There doesn’t appear that there are any studies indicating how growing up on welfare affects children in the long term, which seems way overdue.

The studies exist. I’ve read them. You can go find them yourself if you want to and make your own comparison. This would require some effort on your part to construct your own argument instead of nitpicking and snarking at mine. I highly doubt you are willing to do this.

You are aware that there is a big difference from merely being poor and being so bad off that you have to live on welfare? Good.

No, assume that I’m too stupid to know the difference. What is it, exactly?

Now, why do you suppose that a woman would be in such a condition that she must be taken care of by the government? Some reasons are a serious drug problem, extreme young age, mental problems, abuse. How good of a mother do you suppose these women are?

There are plenty of other reasons why people might be on welfare. Please offer cites as to who is on welfare, and why. Such studies to exist. Otherwise, it’s just more blah blah blah from you.

Hardly a loss since you cannot seem to discuss anything to do with children without getting highly emotional, rude and subject to twisting things around.

Funny, I could say the exact. same. thing. about you, my dear.

As for my providing cites, since you are demanding ones that have nothing to do with what I am saying, I am certainly not going to waste my time.

IOW, you’ve got nothing. You are too lazy to do your own research. This is why having conversations with you is a mug’s game. You refuse to offer evidence for your opinion, you just sit back and nitpick and criticize and twist what others say, and offer some straw men, without formulating anything constructive or substantive of your own. Please construct an argument of your own, since mine is so meaninguless, inferior, and a waste of your time. Go ahead, let’s see if you can do it. My bet is, no, no you can’t. I’m going to venture a guess that you are unable or unwilling to do the research necessary, and that you would much rather take shots at someone else’s argument than to attempt a workable one of your own. Weak sauce, and pretty much everyone, even people who are “on your side” of this debate, think so. Chalk it up as a loss for you and move on, or write something other than variations on “you’re wrong and I’m right, because.”

Ah. Because I don’t approve of people planning to raise children on welfare, you doubt that I know any extremely poor people. Interesting.

I don’t think you know anything about raising children, poor or otherwise.

[starwarsfreek42]

@Rubystreak

They are harmful to children if the child is there for any length of time. That’s not my opinion, that’s a fact. It’s surprising to me that I have to keep saying it. If it were for a week or a month, maybe it wouldn’t be horrible, but that’s unlikely, isn’t it? Long term, you damage the kids and make them more likely to end up in poverty, even if your stated purpose is to help. Taking away infants from their loving but welfare-receiving mothers wouldn’t actually help. Time to move on to a different idea.

If those mothers were so very loving they’d work hard to get back on their feet and get their kid back. If you’ll check that other thread, I really don’t care if it damages the kid. And this wasn’t my idea, but you’re welcome to move on.

Are we talking about a fantasy world where everything is ideal and in conformity with your wishes, or the real world? In the real world, you can’t tell people when they can and cannot have children. I realize that is problematic and that you have major issues with it. The fact is it’s unworkable. That’s really the bottom line.

It’s a hypothetical. In the real world people ought to have enough sense to know when they should and shouldn’t have children. Obviously, they don’t. So someone needs to lay down some rules about it, if only to protect the taxpayers from supporting more dead weight than they already are. If the average time to be on welfare is 4 months it’s not that big a deal to take a pill for the duration.

[cosmosdan]

@starwarsfreek42

If those mothers were so very loving they’d work hard to get back on their feet and get their kid back. If you’ll check that other thread, I really don’t care if it damages the kid. And this wasn’t my idea, but you’re welcome to move on.

If you really don’t care if it damages the kids then you can’t sincerely claim to care about society either. Isn’t caring about the next generation part of steering our society in the right direction. We have to find a balance between caring for the others and requiring and encouraging some personal responsibility.

Some societies survive with no welfare, no unemployment, nada except volunteer charities. We get to choose how we want ours to be. I tend to favor helping folks out but with limits and guidelines that encourage/ require them to contribute and be motivated. Then again it’s not simply a welfare issue but an issue about how our economy works.

It’s a hypothetical. In the real world people ought to have enough sense to know when they should and shouldn’t have children. Obviously, they don’t. So someone needs to lay down some rules about it, if only to protect the taxpayers from supporting more dead weight than they already are. If the average time to be on welfare is 4 months it’s not that big a deal to take a pill for the duration.

I suspect if we set limits on the amount people got for their kids regardless of how many they have we’d see a decline in birth rates. Free birth control seems helpful.

[curlcoat]

@Rubystreak

Is this a serious conversation? Do you think this would ever happen? So why are we even discussing it?

Lets cut to the chase here OK? You don’t seem to be able to follow the discussion, nor interpret what you do read without heavy bias, so I am not going to waste my time trying to respond to your post in specifics. Here is my postion -

1. I believe there are far more than “a few” people who make welfare and related government handouts their income of choice. From now on in this discussion, when I use the word “welfare”, I mean every sort of government handout, such as but not limited to actual welfare payments, WIC, subsidized housing, Medicaid, AFDC, food stamps and whatever else is out there.

2. These people tend to have at least one if not multiple children.

3. These children grow up with the idea that living off the taxpayer is the way to go, and so tend to repeat that lifestyle.

4. Even if the children are loved and nurtured, growing up that desperately poor tends to lead to crime, drug abuse, dropping out of school and for the girls, pregnancy at a very young age.

5. My idea is to remove any babies born to women who are on welfare and raise them in what would be essentially a 24 hour day care. Yes, there would be women there to nurture.

6. I believe this program would cut down on the number of babies born to women on welfare, and would shorten the amount of time the mothers spend on welfare, if they actually love the baby as much as you believe they do. If they don’t clean up their act by some certain time or if they give the baby up for adoption, it becomes a ward of the state and is either adopted out or goes to boarding school when the time comes. This would also replace foster care, which apparently isn’t working out very well. I also believe this would help to stop the cycle of poverty if for no other reason than those children that end up in the system until they are 18 will have a decent education and probably better values.

And no, I am not going to provide you with any cites. For one thing, I don’t care enough to spend a bunch of (dial-up) time on it, and for another thing this whole thread is based on an idea that starwarsfreek had. If you don’t like the idea, it is up to you to provide cites that show the idea is untenable, not the other way around.

[RickJay]

@curlcoat

You don’t.

Great! Once you start collecting your disability, where are you dropping the dogs off?

[curlcoat]

@RickJay

Great! Once you start collecting your disability, where are you dropping the dogs off?

SSDI has nothing to do with welfare, as you well know. Even if it did, my benefit is not contingent on nor changed by whether or not I have pets. Therefore, no matter what, the taxpayer is not paying for anyone’s dogs.