Why should taxpayers being paying for more babies?

[_ajax18]

http://granitegrok.com/blog/2012/01/why ... ght-hb1658

I think this quote hits the nail on the head best. With policies like this, higher taxes and more debt is the only possible outcome.

But the Libs have had Govt step in between that traditional morality and replaced “mess around, mess up – marry up) with the message of “mess around, mess up, and we’ll set the single mom up in her own apartment, free food, free medical, free transportation…” and the like.

[_krose]

How dare those greedy babies ask the government to help out with their food after they so thoughtlessly chose to be born to a single parent with no money! What were they thinking?

It's about time somebody started punishing those little moochers by withholding support. It's the only moral response in this kind of situation. I applaud these righteous legislators for taking such a moral stand. It's about time someone had the courage to stand up to the rich and powerful thumb-sucker lobby and take action. The free ride for greedy moocher babies must end now.

[_cinepro]

I posted this in the other thread, but it's a good illustration of how government policies can have unintended consequences.

Is there truly no way to solve the problem without "punishing the little moochers"?

http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/

As I got further into this story, I started hearing about another group of people on disability: kids. People in Hale County told me that what you want is a kid who can "pull a check." Many people mentioned this, but I basically ignored it. It seemed like one of those things that maybe happened once or twice, got written up in the paper and became conversational fact among neighbors.

Then I looked at the numbers. I found that the number of kids on a program called Supplemental Security Income -- a program for children and adults who are both poor and disabled -- is almost seven times larger than it was 30 years ago.

Jahleel Duroc (pictured above) is gap-toothed, 10 and vibrating with enthusiasm. He's excited to talk to someone new, excited to show me his map of his neighborhood in the Bronx. He's disabled in the eyes of the government because he has a learning disability.

"I like school," he told me. "My favorite periods are math and science and art, and lunch and recess and snack … social studies and writing are my favorite."

His favorite thing about school, in other words, is everything.

When you are an adult applying for disability you have to prove you cannot function in a "work-like setting." When you are a kid, a disability can be anything that prevents you from progressing in school. Two-thirds of all kids on the program today have been diagnosed with mental or intellectual problems.

Jahleel is a kid you can imagine doing very well for himself. He is delayed. But given the right circumstances and support, it's easy to believe that over the course of his schooling Jahleel could catch up.

Let's imagine that happens. Jahleel starts doing better in school, overcomes some of his disabilities. He doesn't need the disability program anymore. That would seem to be great for everyone, except for one thing: It would threaten his family's livelihood. Jahleel's family primarily survives off the monthly $700 check they get for his disability.

Jahleel's mom wants him to do well in school. That is absolutely clear. But her livelihood depends on Jahleel struggling in school. This tension only increases as kids get older. One mother told me her teenage son wanted to work, but she didn't want him to get a job because if he did, the family would lose its disability check.

I haven't taken a survey or anything, but I'm guessing a large majority of Americans would be in favor of some form of government support for disabled children living in poverty. We would have a hard time agreeing on exactly how we want to offer support, but I think there are some basic things we'd all agree on.

Kids should be encouraged to go to school. Kids should want to do well in school. Parents should want their kids to do well in school. Kids should be confident their parents can provide for them regardless of how they do in school. Kids should become more and more independent as they grow older and hopefully be able to support themselves at around age 18.

The disability program stands in opposition to every one of these aims.

That is so messed up.

[_beastie]

Just a couple of quibbles - the SSI program for children is not that easy to qualify for. It's not just a matter of struggling at school. The child has to have a significant impairment, be significantly behind his peers as well as having been formally diagnosed with some sort of disability. And there is simply no way the author could judge what sort of problems the LD child has by conversing with him. LD children are normally of at least average intelligence, and often people would be surprised at how significantly delayed their progress is in some area. It can be extremely difficult to overcome the disability, and a parent who is afraid of losing SSI isn't going to be the deciding factor in the child's progress. Many of these parents also had significant problems in school, which is why they end up in this situation in the first place.

As far as paying for babies, we can choose to not help these children and turn a blind eye to their hunger and destitution. Then when they grow up enough to hold a gun, we can pay over 50,000 dollars a year to keep them in prison.

http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications ... for-a-year

Anyone up for free norplants? Oh, I forgot, why should we pay for other people's birth control. Right.

[_ajax18]

Anyone up for free norplants?

Do you favor anything like that?

[_beastie]

Do you favor anything like that?

Of course. I cited a study about how free norplants dramatically reduce unwanted pregnancies on a former thread about the topic, but was dismissed by those who insisted that shouldn't have to pay for anyone's birth control, particularly when condoms are so cheap. Or an aspirin to put between one's knees.

[_ajax18]

dramatically reduce unwanted pregnancies

I think a lot of these pregnancies are wanted. It's just that they don't want to have to do what it takes to provide for them, whether that's marrying the father, or going to work. Having someone else forced to pay for it has proven much more attractive.

[_beastie]

dramatically reduce unwanted pregnancies

I think a lot of these pregnancies are wanted. It's just that they don't want to have to do what it takes to provide for them, whether that's marrying the father, or going to work. Having someone else forced to pay for it has proven much more attractive.

I think that's oversimplifying. The pregnancies are "wanted" in that the couple engages in sex without protection, perhaps because of underlying mixed feelings about conception. Maybe the woman wants the man to stay with her. Maybe the man wants to prove his virility. Maybe they believe they prove their worth through having children. Maybe the woman wants someone who really loves her. And babies are cute.

That's why norplant is the answer. The norplant is implanted by a doctor and remains there until replaced about five years later. That way one day of sanity, or perhaps an agreement with social services, is all that's needed. No more need to make last-minute decisions about whether or not to use protection.

by the way, here are some past links in which I argued that free bc, particularly norplant, would save us all money and grief later.

viewtopic.php?p=661764#p661764

This is a good demonstration of what I find idiotic about republicans like you (not all, just the ones like you). You play some game of make believe, in which you can make-believe that the rest of the world will bend to your moral will, and if they won't, you don't have to be involved in the consequences. Lovely world, that, but make-believe. Not very effective for the real world. Go live on an island.

Given the FACT that people are going to continue having sex, and given the FACT that compliance is lower with cheaper forms of contraception, and given the FACT that the cost to society of unwanted and unplanned babies is FAR higher than any birth control, I think we could give out free bc pills to all women and come out ahead. Better yet, norplant implants, which are even more effective.

viewtopic.php?p=643266#p643266

On that thread I cited a study that showed how dramatically free norplant reduced pregnancies.

[_ajax18]

That's why norplant is the answer. The norplant is implanted by a doctor and remains there until replaced about five years later. That way one day of sanity, or perhaps an agreement with social services, is all that's needed. No more need to make last-minute decisions about whether or not to use protection.

I tend to agree with that. I'm all for it, but I'm skeptical if people would really use it. I can also hear charges of racism and social Darwinism, people trying to sue after they chose to have it implanted. Do you even think Democrats would support that? I think many conservatives are fed up with paying for other people to have kids, so in spite of religious concerns, I think many would support it.

[_beastie]

I tend to agree with that. I'm all for it, but I'm skeptical if people would really use it. I can also hear charges of racism and social Darwinism, people trying to sue after they chose to have it implanted. Do you even think Democrats would support that? I think many conservatives are fed up with paying for other people to have kids, so in spite of religious concerns, I think many would support it.

Yes, I think Democrats would support it. Remember, we pushed for insurance companies to provide free bc.