Welfare (as requested in the kid haters thread)

[cosmosdan]

@curlcoat

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.

That’s pretty ironically funny considering our brief conversation in this very thread. None the less

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.

That’s not how GD works and you know it. Nobody can require cites of you but a lack of providing them when asked for makes your conclusions less credible.

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.

Except you have no good reason to believe that do you? It may be true and I’d like to see some stats but “I believe” doesn’t cut it when data is likely available.

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.

I think these are possible and reasonable , but completely without data. I agree to a limited degree and have experienced it. That’s what I meant by a sense of entitlement. Some people seem to think that getting away with whatever you can is perfectly fine because “everybody does it” We can see that mindset extends to a lot of well off people and businesspeople as well.

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.

To clarify, just the children born *while they are on welfare *? If they have two kids when they go on welfare they keep those, right? Do they also have the option for abortion?

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.

Know what, I agree that it would reduce the birth rate among the impoverished. I think simply limiting their amount of welfare to two children would also work and in fact has.
I assume they would have adequate time to reclaim their child if they stayed in school, clean, and were working? Also if they have family that are willing to take this child, willing and capable family get priority consideration. I know a lot of families that have worked this out.

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.

Honestly, I haven’t read your posts after our brief exchange but I don’t find this idea as horrific as others apparently have. We already remove children from parents when it seems warranted. Lot’s of kids survive boarding school and being away from their parents, or parents working two jobs that they barely see. The old adage “it takes a community to raise a child” has a element of truth. I’ve also heard horror stories about foster care where families accept children to get a check. Wouldn’t an institution be easier to inspect and control?

Such asBoys Town

Seriously, I believe some bad wasteful programs are put in place to help elect democrats. {Pubbies too of course but we’re discussing welfare} It’s not horrible to consider alternatives.
Once again though, I’d want to see some stats to make a responsible assessment.

[Rubystreak]

@curlcoat

Lets cut to the chase here OK? You don’t seem to be able to follow the discussion

Hilarious. All you can do is hurl insults and attack others’ arguments. You are incapable of constructing your own, a fact that you’ve admitted. You’re right, this conversation is over. You have nothing of merit to say. You should stay out of GD. It’s not for you.

@cosmodan

Honestly, I haven’t read your posts after our brief exchange but I don’t find this idea as horrific as others apparently have.

Taking infants away from parents for long periods of time and putting them in an institutional setting is, in fact, a very bad idea. This isn’t my opinion, it’s a fact. If you disagree, please offer cites to support your position. I’ve already done so, a fact that I find infuriatingly ignored by people who think removing kids from poor mothers is a good idea.

[cosmosdan]

@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 encouragement.

I’d agree with this Sarah. It’s next to impossible for any government program to sift all the worth from the unworthy. We can’t protect every abused or neglected child or meet all the needs of the needy. I’ve known a few women who kept their children for the check, or out of some sense of fear and guilt because they couldn’t face their family and friends and honestly say “I don’t really want to be a parent” {Although guys seem to find that a little easier}

Still, unless we see obvious signs abuse I’d rather let children stay with parents and limit the amount of welfare they receive. I think that would also be affective in reducing the birth rate.

Hey here’s a twist. Let’s require guys to have a vasectomy before they can have sex with a woman on welfare. Let’s require women name the father {do they already?} to receive welfare and then require a blood test verification and then they can foot the bill, or at least part of it.

I’m always shocked at the posters who think guys should be able opt out of parental responsibility with a simple “oops, I didn’t want that to happen”

no I’m not starting a new discussion.

[cosmosdan]

=Rubystreak;11158408

Taking infants away from parents for long periods of time and putting them in an institutional setting is, in fact, a very bad idea. This isn’t my opinion, it’s a fact. If you disagree, please offer cites to support your position. I’ve already done so, a fact that I find infuriatingly ignored by people who think removing kids from poor mothers is a good idea.

I’ll check out the cites. That’s not exactly what I’m proposing. In fact we already do take infants away from parents don’t we? I’m suggesting it only other limited specific circumstances.

How do you feel about my preference and suggestion that we limit welfare amounts recieved rather than raise them for every child?

[Rubystreak]

@cosmosdan

I’ll check out the cites. That’s not exactly what I’m proposing. In fact we already do take infants away from parents don’t we? I’m suggesting it only other limited specific circumstances.

Those “limited specific circumstances” right now are abuse and neglect. I agree with those circumstances. I don’t think being poor, or on welfare, by itself qualifies you to lose your child, because I don’t fundamentally see being poor as abuse or neglect. I realize that others disagree with me about this, but both of my parents were raised in poverty, as were several of my friends, and they turned out fine. Their parents loved them and did the best they could, as I believe most people are.

How do you feel about my preference and suggestion that we limit welfare amounts recieved rather than raise them for every child?

As I said before, benefits are raised on average $70 per child. There is absolutely no way a woman can support a child on $70 a month. That’s the problem-- having more children increases the length of time a woman will be on welfare. If you withhold money from her, you are running counter to what you claim you want, which is for them to get off welfare ASAP. There are statistics that state that women on welfare do have fewer children:

The second issue regarding women on welfare who continue to have more children to increases their welfare check is also a misconception among the public. Both Berrick and Cammisa argue that a welfare recipient’s check may increase due to having another child but only on average by approximately $70.00 per month. Seventy dollars per month is hardly enough money to support a child and supports the notion that in fact many women on welfare find it harder to raise their children and to escape poverty and the welfare system if they have additional children.

…One study found that women on welfare were more conscientious about using contraceptives while on welfare, that they were less likely to want an additional pregnancy, and that they were less likely to become pregnant while on welfare. Other studies have found that women on welfare become less interested in having additional children when they realize how great the financial strain of child rearing is. In sum there is very little financial incentive to bear further children while on AFDC.

This is why I find this thread so aggravating. A lot of what people are arguing against and hoping to change doesn’t actually exist in any meaningful numbers. But then, I am a flaming liberal cum socialist who loves kids, so that’s my bias. I’d rather spend money on poor children than the war in Iraq. YMMV.

[starwarsfreek42]

@cosmosdan

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.

I haven’t claimed to sincerely care about society, have I? That said, I have an idea about what sort of society I want to live in. I want total freedom of speech and religion, equal marriage rights for all genders and orientations, socialized medicine, free birth control, and better education. I want a strong military force, but with a generally pacifist population. I want recycling to be mandatory rather than elective, and I want littering and animal cruelty to be punishable by jail time. I want to see community fitness programs and an effort to keep the elderly independent for longer. I want to see a cure for AIDS and plans for a colony on the moon or Mars in my lifetime. Lots of people disagree with me, but there you go. We do need to find a balance between caring for others and drawing the line of personal responsibility. That’s a difficult line to determine sometimes, but in order for us to move forward in the areas of socialized medicine and better education we’ve got to stop spending on things that aren’t necessary. I don’t think that chronic welfare moms eat up a huge relative chunk of the budget, but they are something that can be cut down on and/or eliminated. Every little bit helps.

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.

I don’t see why this wouldn’t work, but I don’t see many states doing it, either. People take it as discrimination against the poor.

[Rubystreak]

@starwarsfreek42

I don’t think that chronic welfare moms eat up a huge relative chunk of the budget, but they are something that can be cut down on and/or eliminated. Every little bit helps.

If you want to cut down on the number of people on welfare, well, some of the ideas set forth in this thread would be counterproductive. I don’t think they can be eliminated. Some famous guy once said, “The poor will always be with us.” It’s not realistic to think we’ll eliminate people on welfare. With education, we can reduce the numbers, and better health care and free birth control would help too. But like unemployment, poverty is a fact of life. The problem is, people bitch and moan about how high their school taxes are, but if you don’t spend money to educate people, you’re not doing much to break the cycle of poverty, are you? You can’t have it both ways. (I mean the general “you,” not you, starwarsfreek42 personally.)

[cosmosdan]

=Rubystreak;11134724]

And yes, children do need love. This is not an irrational belief: children need physical affection to grow into properly functioning adults. It is well-documented that babies need lots of touch and intimate contact in the first two years of their lives to develop properly. From Infancy and America:

In the interest of fairness and fighting my own ignorance I read most these links as well as the one about WIC. I had to skim because they’re pretty long. I have to say Ruby it is my sincere opinion that they do not support your assertion in regard to this thread. While it’s true that children who receive intimate contact fair much better { I kinda knew that already} there is no indication that the intimate contact has to come from the parents rather than someone else.There’s also no indication that welfare Moms actually do better at providing that intimate contact. In fact from the WIC link

Programs that are physically interactive may help reduce physical/verbal interaction deprivation in these adolescents. In many intervention programs, verbal intimacy is provided by psychotherapy. Rarely is the verbal therapy complemented by a positive physical contact experience.

in fairness it also says

Students who had greater intimacy with their parents had greater interest in school, higher self-esteem, lower depression, and lower risk-taking scores.

but then to support your premise you’d have to show that welfare Moms provide that intimacy more often than not, and that alternatives such as adoption, foster care, or other facilities, do not.

It also says

In the second study (Diego et al., 2002), 20 violent children and adolescents (mean age = 11.4 years) were randomly assigned to a massage therapy group or a relaxation therapy group to receive 20minute therapy sessions twice a week for 5 weeks. The massaged adolescents had lower anxiety and cortisol levels and improved mood after the first and last sessions. By the end of the study, the massaged adolescents showed more empathy and were rated as being less aggressive toward objects and less aggressive in general by their parents.

It seems to me that the primary importance is that they receive nurturing and contact. No where does it conclusively show that this affection must come from the biological parent. In fact the WIC link shows that adolescent girls are much more prone to become single Mothers while the other link says adolescent Moms tend to have more problems being an effective mother. It seems to me that a well run program with trained staffers who know these very thing might have an excellent chance of taking good care of a group of kids. I assume you’re in favor of kids being taken away from drug addicted, alcoholic and generally abusive parents. Over the years I’ve met lots of fucked up kids who still lived with their parents who had no fault other than focusing on career rather than their kids.
I have a step son who never lived with his Dad and my youngest daughter has a step Dad and never lived with me. Genetics aside for both of them it is the love and contact provided by a father figure that mattered more.So, while I agree that infants and toddlers need and do much better with love and contact you haven’t shown that leaving a child with a Mom who already has at least one child and is on welfare will provide that contact in a superior way.

[Rubystreak]

Well, cosmodan, I guess the idea of removing infants from their welfare-receiving mothers isn’t so ridiculous after all, eh?

@cosmosdan

I have to say Ruby it is my sincere opinion that they do not support your assertion in regard to this thread. While it’s true that children who receive intimate contact fair much better { I kinda knew that already} there is no indication that the intimate contact has to come from the parents rather than someone else.

You know, I think I’m actually losing my temper now. How many times do I have to knock down this straw man? I NEVER SAID IT HAD TO BE FROM THE BIOLOGICAL PARENTS. They need “maternal” affection. That does not have to come from the birth mother. HOWEVER, my cites did prove that children in institutional settings, who are receiving their nurturing from paid employees, fare much worse than those raised by loving parents. No one has yet assailed that point. You need to prove that the institutional setting that you’re touting would be superior to a non-abusive, not neglectful parent who happens to be on welfare. I’ll wait for your cites.

Note: I am not talking about drug or alcohol addicted parents. I am not talking about parents who are neglecting their children, or who abuse them. I am talking about loving parents, doing their best, who are on welfare. Parents who abuse or neglect their children or who have substance abuse problems stand to lose their kids whether they are on welfare or not, so that is not relevant to this discussion.

There’s also no indication that welfare Moms actually do better at providing that intimate contact.

I think YOU would have to prove that paid employees do as good a job at nurturing children as parents do. So far, no one has provided cites of that nature, while I have provided cites that infants in institutional settings do not thrive.

but then to support your premise you’d have to show that welfare Moms provide that intimacy more often than not, and that alternatives such as adoption, foster care, or other facilities, do not.

No, YOU would have to prove that your scenario is superior to the care of the biological parents. I’ve already done all the proving I’m going to do. If you want to take infants away from their mothers, it’s you who is on the hot seat to justify it, not on those who oppose it. Surely you understand that.

Now, on to your vague scenario. Do you know how hard it is to find quality foster families? Please, take a few minutes to do some research on the foster care system in the United States, how much it already costs, and how well it works. Now dump millions more infants into the system. THIS is a solution to poverty? Really?

These infants would not be put into individual foster families. The system is overburdened as it is-- they would be in an institutional setting. Adoption is PERMANENT removal from the family. Are you truly suggesting that? Just because the mother is on welfare? That’s both draconian and unlikely to be implemented, thank god. As for orphanages (which is what they’d be), I feel I’ve adequately discredited that as an option for children with living, loving parents who are not abusive or neglectful.

It seems to me that the primary importance is that they receive nurturing and contact. No where does it conclusively show that this affection must come from the biological parent.

You are insulting your own intelligence by derailing this conversation and ignoring what I’ve said, over and over. So I will just ignore this comment as I’ve already addressed it ad nauseum. However, we’re not really talking about replacing the biological parents with new parents who are not on welfare, are we? We are talking about replacing biological parents with paid employees. When you have functional, if impoverished, parents on the one hand, and governmental care, which is flawed at best and very costly, on the other, why would you ever choose the governmental care? You’re going to pay for that hand over fist, why not just pay the welfare to the people who love the child? Are we so loath to pay for welfare that we’d rather remove children from otherwise loving parents and put them into the foster care or institutional care system? That’s just… ridiculous, and mean-spirited. I don’t understand the logic of that, unless you think poverty is inherently abusive, which I think is, again, ridiculous.

It seems to me that a well run program with trained staffers who know these very thing might have an excellent chance of taking good care of a group of kids.

It’s amusing that you’re presupposing a “well run program with trained staffers.” Sure, that’s a given… please, ask curlcoat if she’d be willing to pay the billions of dollars this would cost. Next, we’re not talking about kids. We’re talking about INFANTS, newborns, who need to bond with their mothers in the first six months of life. You would disrupt that natural process because you want to punish the woman for being on welfare? Because if you rip an infant away from his mother, no matter how high-minded your reasons are, it’s a punishment. If you’re going to do that, you’d better be damned sure you’re actually going to improve the child’s life. The burden of proof is on you.

Over the years I’ve met lots of fucked up kids who still lived with their parents who had no fault other than focusing on career rather than their kids.

Yeah, and? The government should get involved in that too? Wow, so much for small government. And civil liberties, and the right to raise your children in ways that other people disapprove of.

[cosmosdan]

@Rubystreak

Those “limited specific circumstances” right now are abuse and neglect. I agree with those circumstances. I don’t think being poor, or on welfare, by itself qualifies you to lose your child, because I don’t fundamentally see being poor as abuse or neglect. I realize that others disagree with me about this, but both of my parents were raised in poverty, as were several of my friends, and they turned out fine. Their parents loved them and did the best they could, as I believe most people are.

Honestly, nobody claimed that being poor was abuse or neglect. The suggestion is meant to require responsibility. There is a serious difference between “They’re taking my baby because I’m poor” and "They’re taking my baby temporarily because I made an agreement I didn’t keep. It is a drastic measure to be sure but according to your own stats and how you’re representing them there would be a very small number women actually having a child taken.

Hey both my parents were raised in poverty and so was I and my siblings. As a kid I had warm clothes, plenty of food, and a warm place to sleep. I didn’t even notice we were poor. My Dad never asked for a handout, He worked two jobs a long as I can remember to make ends meet. For a short time when my own family was struggling we lived in subsidized housing and that’s where I saw some of the abuse that I’ve mentioned above.

As I said before, benefits are raised on average $70 per child. There is absolutely no way a woman can support a child on $70 a month.

Keep in mind that that’s the average. I’d love to see stats from states that are on the high end of the scale. Let’s also note that the state will probably support the new infant besides upping the check. More food stamps and WIC. Perhaps a bigger apartment with utilities and free medical. $70 dollars isn’t much but when the state is paying all the essential bills it’s all gravy.

That’s the problem-- having more children increases the length of time a woman will be on welfare. If you withhold money from her, you are running counter to what you claim you want, which is for them to get off welfare ASAP.

Right. That’s what we’re talking about. from your own site,

Berrick quotes David Ellwood stating that “an important minority, at least one quarter, will collect AFDC for ten or more years”

There’s this

It seems that a single woman on welfare who has additional children will most likely increase her years on welfare due the financial strain of raising another child. Every additional child is a greater responsibility and creates a difficulty for the mother to pursue job training, an education or to work in general due to having to take care of her child, especially while the child is very young.

How do we square that with the 1/4 who are on for ten years and consume 65% of the money? At least some significant portion of them want to be there. This study also doesn’t mention anything about welfare recipients working under the table while or having an unclaimed live in roommate.
I will say that one of them very stupidest things I saw was good people who wanted to work and perhaps go to school had little motivation to do so. When you started working and earned a little money they took away all or most of your benefits {medical being the most significant} so that they lost far more than they were earning and literally couldn’t afford to work. I also saw corruption from the people who contracted with the government to provide housing and services, so basic honesty and decency has nothing to do with income IMHO.
Those facts make me agree with this statement.

Welfare needs to give women receiving assistance more options other than one, being completely dependent on the system or two, self-sufficient but still poor.

I also believe based on my life experience that plenty of people need to be pushed and prodded and in some cases required to be responsible adults. Not no help, but limited help. Doing that won’t discourage those that only wanted temporary aide to begin with.

There are statistics that state that women on welfare do have fewer children:

Yeah, let’s look at how they interpret those stats. First there’s the glaringly obvious $70 mistake that I already pointed out.

There’s this

The women in the older age group of thirty-five years old to forty-four years old actually had an average of 3.7 children each.

which is at least part of the longer than ten years group. They have the highest number of children yes? Then there’s this

As they got older in age, the average number of children they had rose. Even though the statistics in Berrick and Cammisa’s books state that the average number of children in a welfare recipient’s home is two, this may not be the actual or average amount of children that the recipients had throughout their duration on welfare. At age eighteen or twenty a woman on welfare may only have had one or two children due to the few amount of years she has been able to bear children. A woman who is in her thirties in fact may have had more children than the younger woman.

So as they get more life experience and less fertile they tend to have more children. What does that mean to you?
*
I assume you noticed the number of women in the WIC chart getting AFDC and Food Stamps and* WIC.

This is why I find this thread so aggravating. A lot of what people are arguing against and hoping to change doesn’t actually exist in any meaningful numbers. But then, I am a flaming liberal cum socialist who loves kids, so that’s my bias. I’d rather spend money on poor children than the war in Iraq. YMMV.

OOOOOOO low blow. I completely agree as far as priorities go.

I agree that the money itself is probably insignificant in comparison but as someone just said. every little bit helps. I just don’t buy the often seen liberal cry that " As long a we’re helping the children" is all that accurate when we look at specific details. IMO it’s not just about dollars and sense but discovering how to move our society into the next generation and the next. so tweaking a system to get the most out of it makes perfect sense.

I’ll add that I appreciate your posts and the cites.

[Rubystreak]

@cosmosdan

Honestly, nobody claimed that being poor was abuse or neglect.

Really? I think you’re wrong. You never claimed that, but it was claimed in this very thread.

The suggestion is meant to require responsibility. There is a serious difference between “They’re taking my baby because I’m poor” and "They’re taking my baby temporarily because I made an agreement I didn’t keep. It is a drastic measure to be sure but according to your own stats and how you’re representing them there would be a very small number women actually having a child taken.

It’s not a small number, actually. It’s in the millions (I base this on the stats for women who receive WIC, whose kids are 5 and under, assuming they were all born on welfare), and the foster care system currently only has around 500,000 kids in it, most of whom are not infants. I personally think it’s morally wrong to remove an infant from a loving mother who is simply poor. You can spin it any way you want, but it IS “They’re taking my baby because I’m poor.” It is. And it’s wrong.

Keep in mind that that’s the average. I’d love to see stats from states that are on the high end of the scale.

Around $130/month, and that would be California, an expensive state to live in.

Let’s also note that the state will probably support the new infant besides upping the check. More food stamps and WIC. Perhaps a bigger apartment with utilities and free medical. $70 dollars isn’t much but when the state is paying all the essential bills it’s all gravy.

If it’s all gravy, why do the women remain poorer longer? You’re contradicting yourself.

How do we square that with the 1/4 who are on for ten years and consume 65% of the money? At least some significant portion of them want to be there.

And for that vanishingly small number, we will introduce draconian child removal tactics for all women who bear children while on welfare. You don’t find that ridiculous?

I also believe based on my life experience that plenty of people need to be pushed and prodded and in some cases required to be responsible adults. Not no help, but limited help. Doing that won’t discourage those that only wanted temporary aide to begin with.

Who determines who is really in need and who is lazy?

So as they get more life experience and less fertile they tend to have more children. What does that mean to you?

It means that a woman whose reproductive life is 5 years long has one child, while a woman at the end of her reproductive life, after 20 years of fertility, has more children. This is just common sense. It doesn’t mean welfare encouraged her to have more children.

I agree that the money itself is probably insignificant in comparison but as someone just said. every little bit helps. I just don’t buy the often seen liberal cry that " As long a we’re helping the children" is all that accurate when we look at specific details.

Well, please don’t mischaracterize my liberal view as “as long as we’re helping the children.” I’ve offered ample facts to support my views, and I’m the only one offering cites to back them up, you’ll notice. Honestly, it sucks mightily that women on welfare are having babies. I agree with you and starwarsfreek to some extent. In my perfect world, it wouldn’t happen, but it’s not a perfect world. I think the cure you’re proposing is worse than the disease.

I’ll add that I appreciate your posts and the cites.

Thanks. I’m glad someone does.

[Rubystreak]

@Rubystreak

And for that vanishingly small number…

I shouldn’t have said “vanishingly small.” It’s a minority of women on welfare who stay on it long-term. Clearly these are the women on whom the system should be focusing. I understand how frustrating it is to watch someone perpetuate a cycle of poverty, and this 25% of welfare moms are likely doing just that. I think it’s safe to say that taking away their children, if they are not being abused or neglected, won’t happen. What else could be done to get them off welfare? I’m talking practical ideas, not draconian measures, not perfect world scenarios.

[erleichda]

This thread makes me want to cry. I was on welfare. My parents made me sign up when I had my son. 23 fucking years later and I’m still ashamed to let some random people on the internet know about it.
My kids are grown and I’m still living in poverty. You want to know why? Because poverty is damn hard to shake without family or other support. I will forever be grateful that I live in a country that did not let me or my kids starve, that allowed me an education and the chance to maybe become comfortable financially sometime before I die. Thank you to everyone who doesn’t hate me for surviving on your tax dollars. I would not be here if we did not have the programs that we do.
I honestly don’t know what to say to some of the (other) posters here. I thought that I was bitter and cynical.

[cosmosdan]

@Rubystreak

Well, cosmodan, I guess the idea of removing infants from their welfare-receiving mothers isn’t so ridiculous after all, eh?

As you said, under very specific circumstances some of which alreadt exist.

You know, I think I’m actually losing my temper now. How many times do I have to knock down this straw man? I NEVER SAID IT HAD TO BE FROM THE BIOLOGICAL PARENTS. They need “maternal” affection. That does not have to come from the birth mother.

My apologies. The cites were long and I skimmed. I didn’t see anything specifically about institutional settings. Do you remember which link it was and I will read again. Also, after a silly encounter with curlcoat early in the thread I stooped reading her posts so I’m sure I missed some of your responses.

HOWEVER, my cites did prove that children in institutional settings, who are receiving their nurturing from paid employees, fare much worse than those raised by loving parents. No one has yet assailed that point. You need to prove that the institutional setting that you’re touting would be superior to a non-abusive, not neglectful parent who happens to be on welfare. I’ll wait for your cites.

I won’t try to prove that because I don’t believe it. I’m wondering how we determine which welfare recipients are actually loving and supportive. We don’t seem real good at that now. Did I miss that cite as well?

Note: I am not talking about drug or alcohol addicted parents. I am not talking about parents who are neglecting their children, or who abuse them. I am talking about loving parents, doing their best, who are on welfare. Parents who abuse or neglect their children or who have substance abuse problems stand to lose their kids whether they are on welfare or not, so that is not relevant to this discussion.

Hmmmm same question. Do we have stats that show there are more loving parents on welfare than not or is it the other way around?

I think YOU would have to prove that paid employees do as good a job at nurturing children as parents do. So far, no one has provided cites of that nature, while I have provided cites that infants in institutional settings do not thrive.

As well as those with loving parents as far as I understand it. The other relevant question is what percentage of welfare parents on for ten years or more are loving and nurturing. The suggestion, not totally unreasonable IMO is that those who are on welfare and actually loving and nurturing might be responsible enough to not get pregnant. I don’t want to be emotionally cruel to people who just make a mistake. I have three great kids that were all mistakes. We could modify the proposal to require an interview in case of another pregnancy and have an honest discussion about the options. Ok you’re on welfare and you’re pregnant again. What are your plans? Where is your family? The babies father? that kind of thing.

No, YOU would have to prove that your scenario is superior to the care of the biological parents. I’ve already done all the proving I’m going to do. If you want to take infants away from their mothers, it’s you who is on the hot seat to justify it, not on those who oppose it. Surely you understand that.

Actually when you make a declarative statement that X is a true fact it is up to you to prove it. You’ve provided cites and I appreciate that sincerely. I’m only saying your cites that I’ve seen so far don’t establish your conclusion but it does appear I’ve missed something. Which cite spoke of institutions?

Now, on to your vague scenario. Do you know how hard it is to find quality foster families? Please, take a few minutes to do some research on the foster care system in the United States, how much it already costs, and how well it works. Now dump millions more infants into the system. THIS is a solution to poverty? Really?

Are we really talking about millions. I thought it was an insignificant number because welfare Moms have fewer children? I confess. I don’t know much about the foster care system and I’ve heard some of the horror stories. That’s why I think an institution might be better able to be monitored. I further admit I could be dead wrong but you haven’t shown me that’s the case yet.

These infants would not be put into individual foster families. The system is overburdened as it is-- they would be in an institutional setting. Adoption is PERMANENT removal from the family. Are you truly suggesting that? Just because the mother is on welfare? That’s both draconian and unlikely to be implemented, thank god. As for orphanages (which is what they’d be), I feel I’ve adequately discredited that as an option for children with living, loving parents who are not abusive or neglectful.

I believe you have as well. What you haven’t done is show what percentage of parents all ready on welfare will be loving and nurturing. Just saying being with loving nurturing parents is better is stating the obvious which has no real statistical value. I say this in part because I saw great parents on welfare and bad ones. Not all the ones who weren’t overtly abusive were loving and nurturing but you’re right that there’s certainly no guarantees with an institution either.

You are insulting your own intelligence by derailing this conversation and ignoring what I’ve said, over and over. So I will just ignore this comment as I’ve already addressed it ad nauseum. However, we’re not really talking about replacing the biological parents with new parents who are not on welfare, are we? We are talking about replacing biological parents with paid employees. When you have functional, if impoverished, parents on the one hand, and governmental care, which is flawed at best and very costly, on the other, why would you ever choose the governmental care? You’re going to pay for that hand over fist, why not just pay the welfare to the people who love the child? Are we so loath to pay for welfare that we’d rather remove children from otherwise loving parents and put them into the foster care or institutional care system? That’s just… ridiculous, and mean-spirited. I don’t understand the logic of that, unless you think poverty is inherently abusive, which I think is, again, ridiculous.

Again, I apologize for not reading all your posts. No I don’t think that. I am not loath to pay for welfare. I’m merely exploring the options.

It’s amusing that you’re presupposing a “well run program with trained staffers.” Sure, that’s a given…

Aren’t you assuming loving and nurturing parents? I’m sure you know that’s not always the case.

please, ask curlcoat if she’d be willing to pay the billions of dollars this would cost. Next, we’re not talking about kids. We’re talking about INFANTS, newborns, who need to bond with their mothers in the first six months of life. You would disrupt that natural process because you want to punish the woman for being on welfare?

Blatantly false. My daughter just had her 2nd child and could not afford to miss much work so her infant is in daycare and she pays for every bit of it. Yes, I’d rather have an economy where decent mothers can stay home to nurture their kids rather than work for 6 months to a year. That’s not the one we have .

Because if you rip an infant away from his mother, no matter how high-minded your reasons are, it’s a punishment. If you’re going to do that, you’d better be damned sure you’re actually going to improve the child’s life. The burden of proof is on you.

realistically we can’t be damed sure either way can we? That’s the reality of a very imperfect humanity. We try to solve problems and observe the results to see if it’s working. Along the way some people including children get hurt and some take advantage of others. Honestly I would much rather see children with loving parents and I am always glad when I encounter them. It keeps me hopeful. I’m playing devils advocate a bit and saying the idea, if really thought out, isn’t completely unreasonable.

Yeah, and? The government should get involved in that too? Wow, so much for small government. And civil liberties, and the right to raise your children in ways that other people disapprove of.

No, I’m only pointing out that any assumption that being with parents is far superior isn’t clearly established.
I sometimes wonder if home schooling by the fundies of any religion, kind of like we saw in Jesus Camp is abuse but I really don’t want a big brother type state. I’ve encountered several programs over the years that were actually much more successful at helping and nurturing kids than parents so while I believe it’s not easy, it certainly is possible.

[cosmosdan]

@erleichda

This thread makes me want to cry. I was on welfare. My parents made me sign up when I had my son. 23 fucking years later and I’m still ashamed to let some random people on the internet know about it.
My kids are grown and I’m still living in poverty. You want to know why? Because poverty is damn hard to shake without family or other support. I will forever be grateful that I live in a country that did not let me or my kids starve, that allowed me an education and the chance to maybe become comfortable financially sometime before I die. Thank you to everyone who doesn’t hate me for surviving on your tax dollars. I would not be here if we did not have the programs that we do.
I honestly don’t know what to say to some of the (other) posters here. I thought that I was bitter and cynical.

Just so you know, having been on welfare myself I never judge people who need help. A good heart and spirit have nothing to do with income. I’m still pretty poor myself. I have little patience for those who automatically assume superiority based on income. It’s so untrue.

Still, my life experience tells me that some people need a kick in the ass to be responsible. In fact that was the running joke in my house when the kids got in trouble.

“Sometimes you have to love someone enough to kick them in the ass”

[Rubystreak]

@cosmosdan

My apologies. The cites were long and I skimmed. I didn’t see anything specifically about institutional settings. Do you remember which link it was and I will read again.

I linked to it and also quoted it, about how infants fail to thrive in orphanages/institutions. It’s in a reply to curlcoat.

I’m wondering how we determine which welfare recipients are actually loving and supportive. We don’t seem real good at that now. Did I miss that cite as well?

Systems are already in place to deal with abusive and neglectful parents. You don’t need to reinvent the wheel. If the children don’t need to be removed from the home for those reasons, then you can pretty much assume that the parents will do their best. I think we can give most people at least that much credit.

Do we have stats that show there are more loving parents on welfare than not or is it the other way around?

What does this sentence mean? “More loving parents on welfare than not”? I think they love their kids just as much as other humans. Some of them might not, but no greater percentage than occurs in the rest of the population. So no, I don’t think I have to “prove” that welfare moms love their kids more than a foster parent or government employee would.

The other relevant question is what percentage of welfare parents on for ten years or more are loving and nurturing. The suggestion, not totally unreasonable IMO is that those who are on welfare and actually loving and nurturing might be responsible enough to not get pregnant.

I am not willing to say that, simply based on the fact that that they have been on welfare long-term, that they are not loving and nurturing. It’s YOU who would have to prove, on a case-by-case basis, that they were not. These provisions are already in place. It’s not up to me to prove that they deserve to keep their kids, and it’s absurd for you to suggest that I provide a cite to back up my position.

Actually when you make a declarative statement that X is a true fact it is up to you to prove it. You’ve provided cites and I appreciate that sincerely. I’m only saying your cites that I’ve seen so far don’t establish your conclusion but it does appear I’ve missed something. Which cite spoke of institutions?

Read over my posts in this thread. You’ll find it. I’m not going back to re-cite it. I’ve done my work. Now you do yours.

Are we really talking about millions. I thought it was an insignificant number because welfare Moms have fewer children?

I never said that, sorry. The stats from WIC are that 136,000 women are getting WIC for their first child. There are about 5 million children getting WIC. If you don’t want to assume that all of those children were born while their mothers were on welfare, just say 10%. That’s half a million. Currently there are half a million kids in foster care. You’d double that number. Good idea! Check out what it already costs. Read the whole article to see why I think this is a very bad plan, proposed out of ignorance.

I believe you have as well. What you haven’t done is show what percentage of parents all ready on welfare will be loving and nurturing.

Reread that sentence and look at what you’re asking me to prove. Now tell me that’s not insulting and absurd-- “prove that women on welfare love their kids. Prove that they deserve to keep them.” No. YOU prove they don’t deserve to keep them. You want to do something that I (and most of society) would consider draconian, if not downright evil-- the burden of proof is on YOU. You haven’t even read my cites yet. I’m not going to argue further until you do.

Blatantly false. My daughter just had her 2nd child and could not afford to miss much work so her infant is in daycare and she pays for every bit of i

No, it’s not blatantly false. Your daughter got her maternity leave, no? She did her 6 weeks intensive time with the baby. The kid is in daycare during business hours, not 24/7. She can feed her baby her breast milk, she can sleep with him, etc. Therefore, she is able to form and maintain her maternal bond. I’m sure she also sought out daycare that she found to be good quality, not chosen for her by the government. You are suggesting that the infant be removed immediately and put into alternate care. The child would have zero opportunity to bond with his mother in that scenario, unlike your daughter and most mothers, even working ones. Once that window of time, the first six months, is past, you can’t ever get it back.

the idea, if really thought out, isn’t completely unreasonable.

I’m sorry, I think it’s not only unreasonable, but is IMO actually evil. Now please, do some reading and research before you reply to me.

[Cat_Fight]

Yes, if only there were some state-run institutions in place to deal with the children of impoverished parents… it would solve everything…

[curlcoat]

@cosmosdan

That’s not how GD works and you know it. Nobody can require cites of you but a lack of providing them when asked for makes your conclusions less credible.

They aren’t conclusions, they are ideas - this whole thread is based on an idea that starwarsfreek had in the pit. How in the world can I provide cites for an idea?

Here is my postion -
Except you have no good reason to believe that do you? It may be true and I’d like to see some stats but “I believe” doesn’t cut it when data is likely available.

Do you really think that data is available on how many people are gaming the welfare system?

I think these are possible and reasonable , but completely without data. I agree to a limited degree and have experienced it. That’s what I meant by a sense of entitlement. Some people seem to think that getting away with whatever you can is perfectly fine because “everybody does it” We can see that mindset extends to a lot of well off people and businesspeople as well.

Uh, why is it that you can believe those three things but not the first?

To clarify, just the children born *while they are on welfare *? If they have two kids when they go on welfare they keep those, right? Do they also have the option for abortion?

Yes, yes and yes.

Know what, I agree that it would reduce the birth rate among the impoverished. I think simply limiting their amount of welfare to two children would also work and in fact has.

I’m surprised that any government body has decided to limit the amount of money they will pay out for children, no matter who is raising them!

I assume they would have adequate time to reclaim their child if they stayed in school, clean, and were working? Also if they have family that are willing to take this child, willing and capable family get priority consideration. I know a lot of families that have worked this out.

As far as I’m concerned, they could reclaim their child at any time, as long as they hadn’t given it up for adoption. If family is going to take the baby, then family has to pay for the prenatal and birth expenses too.

Honestly, I haven’t read your posts after our brief exchange but I don’t find this idea as horrific as others apparently have. We already remove children from parents when it seems warranted. Lot’s of kids survive boarding school and being away from their parents, or parents working two jobs that they barely see. The old adage “it takes a community to raise a child” has a element of truth. I’ve also heard horror stories about foster care where families accept children to get a check. Wouldn’t an institution be easier to inspect and control?

Just goes to show what happens when you rush to judge… Anyway, I do think that an institution is much easier to run well than foster families scattered all over creation. As you point out, it’s not like most of todays children are spending all that much time (particularly quality time) with their parents as it is.

Once again though, I’d want to see some stats to make a responsible assessment.

As I said to Rubystreak, I’m not interested enough in the subject to try to find out if such stats even exist, not with the amount of time it would take to do that on dial-up. I think the idea is interesting and I comment on it, that is it.

[curlcoat]

@Rubystreak

Hilarious. All you can do is hurl insults and attack others’ arguments. You are incapable of constructing your own, a fact that you’ve admitted. You’re right, this conversation is over. You have nothing of merit to say. You should stay out of GD. It’s not for you.

Well, since I am not the one doing the insulting here, and the idea of debate is to attack the opposing argument (without emotion, which you cannot seem to do) and I am not the one that makes things up, I say that you shouldn’t be in GD. But then, I don’t really care either way since I don’t get bent out of shape by things posted on the internet.

[Rubystreak]

@curlcoat

Well, since I am not the one doing the insulting here, and the idea of debate is to attack the opposing argument (without emotion, which you cannot seem to do) and I am not the one that makes things up, I say that you shouldn’t be in GD. But then, I don’t really care either way since I don’t get bent out of shape by things posted on the internet.

I know you are but what am I? :rolleyes:

Please show where I have “made up” anything. I have amply researched and cited my sources, and made my argument based on facts. You? Nothing. You have no support for your opinion except what you think is common sense. Yes, you can find cites for ideas, because your ideas should be based on reality. You have shown a lack of understanding of the institutional care system, the foster care system, and how to care for infants. If you were honest, you’d admit to this ignorance and your consequent inability to form an intelligent thesis. IOW, if you don’t know what you’re talking about, don’t talk about it. Except you can’t be quiet on the subject because of your strong emotional reaction to the idea that poor people and their children are getting away with something.

Go back to the Pit, where you can stick to insulting people and using anecdotal data that amounts to “poor people suck, and their little kids too. 'Cause I said so.”