Why are fertility rates higher among lower-income American women?

[Indygrrl]

Don’t make assumptions about where I stand on this issue. I haven’t said shit in this thread, nor have I put in my .02 about this topic in any other thread that I can remember. You are the one making statements you don’t want to back up, and now you’re getting defensive about it. If you want to participate in a debate forum, get used to people expecting more than just your ridiculous word for things.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Don’t take it too personally. I’ve not been following your posts in this thread, if you’ve made any, and the “you” was a collective “you”, in response to your use of “we”.

If you don’t want people to post assumptions about why you interpret things the way you do, then don’t try to prove things from the fact that you’ve made the interpretation.

[Frylock]

We (by which I mean most people in the human race) usually assume the people we’re talking to are being as clear as they know how to be concerning the message they’re trying to get across. You don’t score any points in any way for intentionally flouting that convention.

[SciFiSam]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

It doesn’t seem to me that any significant facts are actually in dispute, and I don’t think people asking for cites are asking in good faith.

My points, as stated repeatedly, are that people who have children are eligible for benefits which cover the (primary) costs of supporting those children as well as additional benefits which cover their own costs. As such, they are ahead on a net financial basis as a result of having these children.

It does not seem that anyone is disputing the above.

What people are saying instead is some combination of:

[ul]
[li]suggestions that I’ve said people can make it rich on welfare (“welfare queens”)[/li][li]making an artificial argument over whether it’s worth having children in order to get welfare[/li][li]pretending that TANF is the sum of social assistance programs.[/li][/ul]

These are not good faith arguments and cites have no applicability. For someone who genuinely wants to know, there’s enough already. But you can’t force people to accept things they actively don’t want to accept. Take it or leave it.

What people are disputing is that parents can make a profit out of having kids and going on welfare. It can’t be a ‘money-maker’ unless you make a profit. You DO need to provide cites for that.

What other social assistance programmes are you thinking of?

[tomndebb]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Don’t take it too personally. I’ve not been following your posts in this thread, if you’ve made any, and the “you” was a collective “you”, in response to your use of “we”.

If you don’t want people to post assumptions about why you interpret things the way you do, then don’t try to prove things from the fact that you’ve made the interpretation.

This is pretty ironic, considering you jumped in to defend your position against me when I only addressed a different poster’s refusal to provide references and never commented on your posts.

(I find suspect the claims that other funding is sufficient to keep a kid alive, healthy, and educated, to the point of profitability, but we could spend days throwing conflicting claims for the “real” costs at each other when I am less interested in that debate than I am in getting posters to stop pretending that their own prejudices are some sort of common knowledge.)

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@tomndebb

This is pretty ironic, considering you jumped in to defend your position against me when I only addressed a different poster’s refusal to provide references and never commented on your posts.

I was aware that you were addressing LP.

But your misrepresentation of TANF as the sum of social assistance programs was relevant to my comments here in the same way it was relevant to LP’s, so it was appropriate for me to respond.