So back on What is Welfare Waste / Fraud, we got into a topic that I feel strongly about. And on Minnpost Ryan's Farewell I made similar comments and got little back.
Some Misc Links
Children with Emotionally Immature Parents
Politico Just Give Them Cash
Guardian Drugs and Babies
Number of Kids in Foster Care Grows
PT The Problem with Welfare Fund Recovery
Thank you to my Baby's Daddy
Lovely TI's View
BAW Dealing with Babby Daddys
"Actually most of my craziest ideas are regarding making sure almost all kids are raised well. When the parents and kids fail it is often too late. Unfortunately no one likes my ideas. So here is the question.
Why does our society allow people who would never pass an adoption screening to make and raise babies? Why do we pay them to do so? Then complain about the achievement gap? Our nation’s children deserve better." G2A
"For a "small government" guy, where do you place the idea of a government that would decide who could or could not have children ? A "child permit" before pregnancy ? What happens with an "illegal pregnancy" ? Only the "most worthy" allowed ? Certainly, Mein Führer !! A master-race !" Neal
"Small is relative... And as I said, no one likes my ideas... They are happy to protect the freedoms of the adults while babies go home with people who they would not let baby sit their own infant. They fight to ensure that older Public Employees make more and their jobs are secure even as a large portion of our unlucky kids fail in school and life. We are putting the freedoms, incomes and security of adults ahead of those of our most helpless citizens. That is a choice we are making and many kids are suffering for it. :-(" G2A
We tried changing that system once. It's called eugenics, and it has fallen out of favor.
"Since the Clinton presidency, the government has been moving away from perpetual cash for reproduction.It also strikes me as a bit facile to link the achievement gap with welfare receipt by parents." RB
"Eugenics: "the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics"
My view is different... "Children have the right to a stable home and qualified, non-stressed out, mature, supported, dedicated, etc parent(s).
I am sorry to say, but responsible Parent(s) do not have a 3rd, 4th, 5th, 15th child when they can not afford to house and take care of child 1 or 2 themselves..."
I don't care about the parent's genetic traits, I care about their parental capabilities, behaviors and dedication to make good choices for their children. And unfortunately it looks like the pay for kid programs are coming back. PBS Family Welfare Limit Changes" G2A
"Should pretty much anyone be free to make and keep a baby in your view?The consensus of commenters has been similar to that of RB's and Neal's. In essence that adults get to keep making babies in America whether they can afford them or are capable of caring for them responsibly or not. Personally I disagree, I think our society has a duty to the child(ren) first and until we accept this responsibility the poor unlucky screwed up kids will stay with us. Angel should never have been allowed to have more than 2 children and social services should have kept a close eye on them.
What would you do if a "not good parent" kept making babies?
Here is an update regarding the poster child for unfit mothers.
What do recommend our society do?" G2A
Some Misc Links
Children with Emotionally Immature Parents
Politico Just Give Them Cash
Guardian Drugs and Babies
Number of Kids in Foster Care Grows
PT The Problem with Welfare Fund Recovery
Thank you to my Baby's Daddy
Lovely TI's View
BAW Dealing with Babby Daddys
71 comments:
maybe you should focus your argument that child protection should be more aggressive in removing children from their parent(s) in cases of abuse and neglect. I think there has been research that says children often do better when effort is made to keep them with their parent(s) rather than put them in the foster care system.
The fundamental problem is that you put yourself (through government) in charge of deciding who is a good parent and who is not-- who is capable of adequately caring for a child and who is not. That's tyranny of the worst sort.
Sure, Angel Adams has too many kids and probably isn't raising them very well. An investigation may be warranted. But for every Angel, I would guess there are a dozen large black families in the Mississippi Delta that, thanks to hard work, a big garden, a couple trot lines and a lotta love, are doing just fine. How many great parents are you going to punish to avoid one truly worthy of it?
Laurie,
When the child is born and neglected... It is already too late. They love and bond with their parent whether that parent deserves it or not. Just look at my link regarding the disaster we call our foster care system.
Jerry,
Being poor or having big families is not a problem as long as you can care for the children.
"Children have the right to a stable home and qualified, non-stressed out, mature, supported, dedicated, etc parent(s).
I am sorry to say, but responsible Parent(s) do not have a 3rd, 4th, 5th, 15th child when they can not afford to house and take care of child 1 or 2 themselves..."
How again would the following rules impact any responsible Parents?
I have been asked what should be done to Win this War. Here are some ideas, I have numbered them for reference purposes only. They not in order of preference:
1. Weaken or eliminate the Public Employee Unions. Their primary purpose is to ensure the senior employees make the most money, receive the best positions and are secure in their employment. These goals are NOT aligned with cost effectively getting the most help to the people who need it. Pay for performance, not years and degrees.
2. Set hard knowledge attainment and/or poverty reduction targets that the bureaucracy managers must hit, and replace them if they don't. No more of these employment contracts where Superintendents get huge buy out clauses when they fail. Pay for performance, not degrees.
3. Make Long Acting Reversible Contraception and the Morning After Pill free and readily available for all. NO baby should be born unless the Baby Maker(s) are 100% wanting the child and feel prepared to care for it. (ie committed to being responsible capable Parents)
4. If a proven irresponsible Baby Maker who is on welfare (ie Angel Adams) gets pregnant. She should be forced to abort or give the Baby up for adoption. And if this happens more than once, her tubes should be tied.
5. The welfare payments and service should be set up to make recipients work, learn, mature and improve their self sufficiency.
6. The male Baby Makers must bear the consequences of their behavior. The female Baby Maker must name the Father so the State can ensure the required child support is paid. The cost may be higher than the money received, but the "free loading Baby Daddy" behavior must be dissuaded.
7. The State must ensure that Baby Makers and the Babies receive training, care, etc until they become a functional family. (ie Parents and Kids) This includes mandatory Parenting classes, Early Childhood Education, Inexpensive quality childcare, etc. Many of the Baby Makers are in this position because their role models were Baby Makers (ie not Parents). Someone has to train them what it means to be a Parent.
There is a start... Now you Liberals and Conservatives can argue for your adult concepts while the unlucky kids continue to suffer...
"... a proven irresponsible Baby Maker who is on welfare" So, to whom, and by whom, was this "proven"? Some tyrannical bureaucrat? Or just you?
Let me help you with #5. The welfare payments and service should be set up to HELP recipients work, learn, mature and improve their self sufficiency. See the difference?
"This includes mandatory Parenting classes,..." Really, where do you get these megalomaniacal ideas? How about OFFERING this help?
Adult concepts? You mean like freedom and responsibility? Human dignity? True charity?
It is a very nice difference, however I believe the Public and Private systems are already set up to help "horses that are thirsty". The problem is that the worst of these baby mama / baby daddy folks are not really motivated to work, learn and become independent.
Remember the Pelowsi Welfare Video
They are going to need to be forced to change the belief and behavior systems that have been ingrained in them since they were children.
In the case of the protecting and supporting the most unlucky kids...
I am worried about them... Not the Baby Mama, Baby Papa or the Public employees.
If Angel Adams was your adult child and she insisted on making babies... And was happy living on government / private assistance...
What would you do?
Just keep telling her that you will support her in her decisions because you support her freedom of choice? Her autonomy?
All the while seeing your Grandkids being conditioned as she is...
Angel is not and never would be my adult child. She would have been raised better. And she is not your child, either, so telling government to have her tubes tied on your behest and insistence is not your rightful role. It is possible, though highly improbable, that she is a good mother by some measure. The problem is that the welfare system offered her the opportunity to make bad choices without penalty, without offering her good choices, perhaps with incentives, a dozen kids or so ago. Don't blame freedom-loving "compassionate conservatives" for what the liberal welfare system has wrought.
"Angel is not and never would be my adult child."
That has to be one of the most naive and egotistical things I have ever heard. Though most kids fall close to the tree, I know "good parents" with very screwed up adult kids.
And no she is not our child, however "we the people" are enabling her dependency....
And for the good of her children and our society, we the people have a very vested interest in fixing / improving people like her.
Not just denying reality and ignoring her children and our future neighbors.
" I know "good parents" with very screwed up adult kids." Therefore, it is possible for "bad parents" to produce responsible, contributing members of society. And YOU claim to be able to tell the difference, by way of some government bureaucracy that knows nothing about the individuals involved.
"however "we the people" are enabling her dependency...." So why not solve the problem, instead of condemning the victims-- "good" parents and "bad" parents alike?
"[D]enying reality" is what liberals do every day, assuming that by creating a dependent underclass they are helping these people while in all actuality robbing them of human dignity and opportunity. Ditch the current welfare system, and some of these folks might be better off. Better yet, issue a tax CREDIT for charitable contribution after ditching the current system.
"solve the problem"
As I asked before you wimped out with that "not my child BS"...
If Angel Adams was your adult child and she insisted on making babies... And was happy living on government / private assistance...
What would you do?
Just keep telling her that you will support her in her decisions because you support her freedom of choice? Her autonomy?
All the while seeing your Grandkids being conditioned as she is...
You keep waltzing around the problem. If Angel were my adult child and was happy living on GOVERNMENT assistance, it's not my problem anymore. It is the government's problem. If it was MY money supporting her (only a teensy tinsy fraction of it is, and some of it is yours) then I would be demanding some sort of gratitude/responsibility/behavior change. And at some point [long ago] there would be a reckoning.
What I would NOT be doing is walking into YOUR back yard and demanding your 22 YO daughter's tubes be tied because I don't like that guy she is hanging around with.
So "your grand children" are being brain washed into a life of dependency and "it is not your problem"... In the story of the "Good Samaritan", it seems that you are not the Samaritan. :-)
Now as for your answer...
"I would be demanding some sort of gratitude/responsibility/behavior change."
And if she did not change what would you do?
Stop giving her the money that kept your grandchildren fed and housed?
Other?
And please note that the criteria for tube tying is a lot more than disliking the BF...
"3. Make Long Acting Reversible Contraception and the Morning After Pill free and readily available for all. NO baby should be born unless the Baby Maker(s) are 100% wanting the child and feel prepared to care for it. (ie committed to being responsible capable Parents)
4. If a proven irresponsible Baby Maker who is on welfare (ie Angel Adams) gets pregnant. She should be forced to abort or give the Baby up for adoption. And if this happens more than once, her tubes should be tied."
I don't think the Good Samaritan pawned off his personal responsibilities on the government. It was perfectly obvious that those who had previously passed by – government and church officials – had not only failed to help but failed to even recognize the humanity of the victim.
You keep saying things like "what would you do" and then go on to tell me what YOU think the GOVERNMENT should do, regardless of what I might think. The welfare system long ago ceased to be my problem, as the government swooped in and assumed all responsibility. They have made a mess and Band-Aids are not going to fix it. I am just out here trying to salvage what human dignity I can for one, or with luck two, of the victims of this system. If you want to Fight against human freedom and human nature through force of government, you go ahead. I remain unconvinced and opposed to such heartless approaches.
So let's say Angel has 5 children and dependent on you for money to house and feed the kids...
Now as for your answer...
"I would be demanding some sort of gratitude/responsibility/behavior change."
And if she did not change what would you do?
Stop giving her the money that kept your grandchildren fed and housed?
Other?
So do you want to cut off the money that keeps kids fed, housed and healthy (medical care)?
seems to me the right thing to do is keep providing for these things even when one disapproves of the parent.
I am not sure what Jerry wants, that is why I am asking. I have clearly listed what I think the solution is.
And Laurie, It seems you support feeding and caring for the dysfunctional as they breed and grow in number... Does that sound about right?
How again does that help the kids and our country?
I would never use the word breed to describe a woman conceiving a child.
I have nothing more to say on this topic, as I realized your attitude is too weird and offensive for me to engage any further.
Laurie,
As for my choice of words, though crass it seems to fit how you think of these folks.
Breed: to produce by mating; propagate sexually; reproduce
Now you recommend that we just keep feeding and caring for dependent people like pets...
You don't want to demand that they behave like responsible Parents...
You are apparently fine that they fail to prepare their child(ren) for kindergarten...
You are apparently fine with them conditioning their children to be dependent like them...
I even expect more from my dog Izzy than you expect and demand from them... She at least has to go look for pheasants for me a few times a year.
What are willing to demand from these fellow citizens, mothers and fathers? Nothing?
As long as they are not abusive and they for the most part keep the kids fed you are fine just letting them do as they wish and have more? And if they do, just give them more money?
And you wonder why we have a terrible achievement and wealth gap in America?
It seems little is going to change going forward...
Conservatives will continue to claim that cutting benefits will by magic not hurt the kids...
Liberals will keep paying Baby Mamas and Papas with few parental expectations...
And the unlucky kids will continue to be born and raised by immature dependent people who like babies, but have no idea how care for or raise them well.
To quote Trump... "SAD"
"What are [you/we?] willing to demand from these fellow citizens?"
There is part of the problem. What RIGHT do you have to demand ANYTHING of your fellow citizens? The government has decided that you will PAY Angel to have more kids and demand nothing in return. You think government SHOULD demand (not ASK) something in return or... what? Starve the kids? It is a puzzlement.
I don't hear any real workable solutions from you, but you make me wonder about a couple.
1) Suppose we just take Angel out behind the barn and shoot her, like a muley cow. Problem solved?
2) Suppose we DO offer free contraceptives to everybody. What if they don't take them? Can we shoot them then?
Once again, you sit in judgement on those who do not meet your standards for a "good parent," and rather than try to help them become better, you want to force them to become better. Since government forces you to pay for it anyway, why not try an approach that private charities have found to work so much better?
Jerry
And you keep avoiding any solution at all... Well other than "MY kids would never do that..."
____
So let's say Angel has 5 children and dependent on you for money to house and feed the kids...
Now as for your answer...
"I would be demanding some sort of gratitude/responsibility/behavior change."
And if she did not change what would you do?
Stop giving her the money that kept your grandchildren fed and housed?
Other?
As for why society has the right to demand responsibility from their citizens...
- they voluntarily signed up for programs that have rules
- we are writing checks to most of the people in question
- many laws demand that we behave in certain manner to protect other citizens... it is what society does...
See previous.
Nothing to see there... You will need to be more specific...
Demand that the government quit giving money to Angel and her kids so that YOU can do it out of your own pocket. Then YOU can demand anything you want of her. Right now, it is government's problem– not mine – pure and simple. they broke it; they bought it (though with your money).
Now if you want to continue to demand government do something different, I would ask the same questions you have been asking. That is, what do you do if she fails to comply? Cut off all funding for the kids?
I was asked once, during a radio call-in show, what responsibility "we" have to "our kids." my response was "ma'am, you and I have no kids. You have kids; I have kids. You are responsible for yours and I am responsible for mine. If I am to be responsible for yours then they are going to come and live with me. And there will be rules."
"And there will be rules." The same authoritarian nonsense...
How are you going to force behavioral and belief change on your unwilling adult child without harming your young grand children?
So, you think that rules made by a far off government which generally carry no consequences are better than rules laid down by a parent – biological or otherwise?
If it comes to enforcement, government has one tool – cutting off funding– whereas a parent has many. It is the individualized compassion, caring, etc. that makes all the difference. You want of authoritarian? That is government by definition. "Good parenting" largely does without it, and accomplishes far more. Why you insist on big-government solutions to what is at worst a community problem, if not an individual one, is quite beyond me.
And yet you do not have any answers on how you will enforce your rules on your hypothetical rebellious baby loving off spring...
My guess is it would involve cutting off money, applying guilt, some caring lectures, etc. And when she moved in downtown Minneapolis with her latest Baby Daddy? I am not sure what you would do... Maybe say she is no longer your problem?
I have an older friend who's adult daughter went down a very similar path... Thankfully the Grand child's biological Father got custody. Not sure if his daughter hit bottom yet. It was not good...
"…answers on how you will enforce your rules on your hypothetical …" Don't we lack sufficient answers to REAL problems, without wading into hypotheticals?
I am all in favor of having these sorts of issues dealt with at a personal level. But that cannot happen while government's heavy foot is on the gas pedal of "entitlement" spending and hovering over the brake of coercive behavior modification. It just wastes a lot of gas (money) that could be spent far more effectively.
I'll assume that means my answer is close to correct.
And please remember that I am one recommending "coercive behavior modification".
Well technically you are also though you fear admitting it for some reason. Remember that work requirements for food, healthcare, etc are sticks... "You do this or else."
And Lord knows the Liberals just want to keep the food trough full, so the unlucky kids can stay fed but impoverished and dependent. Nothing coercive going on there.
people do not eat at a food trough. It is a good thing you have no interest in running for public office as an opponent sharing some of your comments with voters would surely cost you votes.
That is one of many reasons I won’t run for office. :-)
You send them checks. They buy food. They eat food. No improvement required.
If they make more babies, you send bigger checks, they buy more food, they eat more food. No improvement required.
The system has many similarities to the self feeders we had on the farm.
Of course those dependents paid for their sitting around eating when they reached market weight. :-)
have I ever mentioned that nearly all the people on food stamps are either children, disabled, elderly, or employed. Very few of the beneficiaries are the lazy slackers that you love to rant about.
In my church a central idea is the dignity and worth of every person.
Laurie,
Please remember that I am aiming my target at a relatively small percentage of the people who use government assistance.
Over at G2A Welfare Fraud I guesstimated it at 2 million adults and 4 million kids.
These are the truly screwed up folks like Angel Adams and her brood.
Now if you are okay with totally screwed up people like Angel popping out 15 kids (maybe 16 now), society feeding them with welfare, caring for them with medicaid, and likely propagating the cycle of poverty... Then you have earned you Liberal designation.
Here is an interesting piece on work requirements
By the way, I am fine with people having dignity...
I AM NOT FINE WITH ALLOWING SCREWED UP EMOTIONALLY IMMATURE INCAPABLE PEOPLE TO TAKE CARE OF KIDS!!!
how did you come up with these numbers:
2 million adults and 4 million kids.
that sounds like a lot to me (and probably are numbers based on nothing)
Also, I think its likely that social workers / social services say the kids usually have better outcomes with their birth parent than in foster care, except in cases of abuse or neglect.
Census Data
Per that source apparently:
~17 million kids live with a single mom.
~54 million kids live with 2 parents
~2.4 million live with Dad or Grand Parents
This Source Notes That CPS protects over 3 million kids...
Do you really truly think my 4 million number is too high?
And yes taking kids and putting them in foster care is a BAD SOLUTION as I said earlier. That is why my solutions try to minimize unwanted pregnancies first.
And then try to ensure kids are not subjected to high risk households secondly.
"Well technically you are also though you fear admitting it for some reason. Remember that work requirements for food, healthcare, etc are sticks... "You do this or else."
Laurie is right. your tyrannical approach to a "relatively small percentage" does not seem to make the necessarily compassionate and rational distinctions required for your solutions to be effective. Your solutions would seemingly Punish EVERYONE on government assistance and label them as "bad parents" at best.
This problem simply cannot be solved with a one-size-fits-all government solution. It must be done as a person-to-person arrangement involving mutual respect. Now if one of those folks is a government-paid "social worker," (especially one that has been on welfare and understands) that's okay. There are private charities that have been doing it all along and that could serve as a model for the government service. For all but the relatively small percentage who will simply refuse caring assistance, this approach will succeed without any of the "sticks" you demand.
Jerry,
Then you are willing to stop mandating work requirements and taking away benefits for those who do not choose to work?
Just admit you are into sticks and carrots, it will free you.
of course not. Under the current system the work requirements are necessary to cover up glaring flaws in the current system. For example, when work requirements were first instituted in Wisconsin – you had to sign up to look for work in order to get benefits – 20% of recipients immediately dropped off the rolls rather than even look for work. Obviously they did not need it but the system was giving it to them anyway – a huge flaw.
Under the system I have proposed, I believe the nomenclature would have to change. "Carrots and sticks" would become "love (caring) and tough love." A cut off/reduction in benefits would only occur if someone outright refused to work with Anybody sent to help them, or refused to cooperate for no good reason. For example, refusing to take a job because you had no childcare, no transportation or no applicable job skills would be a good reason. "Don't wanna" would not. The vast majority of current recipients would happily accept help to improve their situation, for themselves and their kids. The current system does not and cannot, and I daresay dare not, deal with that reality. Before we start taking away things, shouldn't we consider actually offering them something helpful?
"Carrots and sticks" would become "love (caring) and tough love."
Now that made me smile.... It sounds like some serious "politically correct" rewording.
I was going to say it sounded like something a Liberal Peace Lover would say, but after Laurie's comments... I think they would advocate for "Carrots and more Carrots"...
Don't know the difference among love, tough love, and liberal OPM dreams?
A lot of people have "beaten with a stick" over the millennia in the name of "tough love"... It is still being "beaten with a stick" no matter it's intent / rationale.
Just admit you are an elitist and eugenicist that wants to beat everybody with a stick, when only a few really deserve it. The real key is that such measures employed person to person are far more useful and effective at altering behavior than punishment doled out by an uncaring bureaucratic system. The "OPiuM dreams" are highly addictive, and are doing untold amounts of damage.
Back on topic: children belong with their parents, preferably both of them, unless there are extraordinary reasons to take them away.
Jerry, As noted in the post... And how I replied to RB.
Eugenics: "the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics"
My view is different... "Children have the right to a stable home and qualified, non-stressed out, mature, supported, dedicated, etc parent(s).
I am sorry to say, but responsible Parent(s) do not have a 3rd, 4th, 5th, 15th child when they can not afford to house and take care of child 1 or 2 themselves..."
I don't care about the parent's genetic traits, I care about their parental capabilities, behaviors and dedication to make good choices for their children."
"such measures employed person to person are far more useful and effective at altering behavior than punishment doled out by an uncaring bureaucratic system"
And that is what you are recommending above. That we pull the money that is feeding the kids until the adults straighten up and fly right. (ie work reqts) And that some magical "non-government entity" is going to get actively involved, change the belief systems, change the life long habits, train, etc these millions of people across the country.
While this happening, the parent(s) are struggling, training, working, changing, etc... I am not sure what happens with goal #1...
"Children have the right to a stable home and qualified, non-stressed out, mature, supported, dedicated, etc parent(s). "
"And that is what you are recommending above. That we pull the money..."
I recommend no such thing. I am suggesting that we convert the current bureacratic system to a personal government service, modeled on what effective charities now do. Money would not be "pulled" unless the recipient simply refused the help being offered. Help would never be "pulled," but it could be pushed away. And you keep saying "we" as if you and I controlled this vast bureaucracy and its thousands of hide-bound rules.
"I am sorry to say, but responsible Parent(s) do not have a 3rd, 4th, 5th, 15th child..."
I am sorry to say, but who the heck are you to define who is a "responsible" parent and who is not? Again, what are "we" supposed to do, shoot them?
Perspective...
I am guessing the employees in the "current bureaucratic system" see themselves as providing a "personal government service" when they are funded adequately to maintain a reasonable case load. Not sure how you would implement something more "personal" on the necessary massive scale.
You forgot the important part of the quote...
I am sorry to say, but responsible Parent(s) do not have a 3rd, 4th, 5th, 15th child when they can not afford to house and take care of child 1 or 2 themselves...
Do you really think Welfare Mom with 2 Kids having a 3rd is not being an irresponsible parent and citizen?
Or are you just being stubborn?
The employees in the current system are tasked with administering a whole bunch of one-size-fits-all rules, not helping a reasonable number of people out of poverty and thus working their way out of a job. That is why I would like to divorce these "social workers" from the rules by making some sort of "self-sufficiency effort credit" (like the EITC) available and requiring only (annual?) certification from said social worker that the effort was being made. And I think giving that job (after training) to former welfare recipients would enable the new system to grow and gradually replace the current monstrous and ineffective regime.
And there you go again. Who are you to decide what a parent can "afford"? Can this woman be allowed to have a third child if her new man is willing to marry her and adopt the other two? You are making blanket judgements that you simply have no ability nor right to make for everybody, or even anybody. The current government system completely fails to recognize that there are real, individual, human beings in it. Adding more rules to a system with too many rules already is not going to help. Help will help.
Unfortunately bureaucracies and rules exist for a reason, humans are very good at and willing to commit fraud to game systems. Not sure how to make your system work at scale.
I will speak slow for your benefit...
If she has a man who can support her and the 2 existing babies... She does not meet the simple criteria...
I am sorry to say, but responsible Parent(s) do not have a 3rd, 4th, 5th, 15th child when they can not afford to house and take care of child 1 or 2 themselves...
So who, in your overloaded and overly bureaucratic government system, gets to decide that this woman and her new (unemployed) man can "support" a third child (already on the way), and what happens when said bureaucrat decides they cannot? You simply have proposed a more heartless and ineffective system than what we already have. It's like deciding that only men between 6'9" and 6'11" can play basketball.
Well the woman has a case worker for a reason...
And it pretty easy to tell if she is still on welfare at time of birth...
Actually, I know case workers and their managers. They barely know names, they are so overloaded. Yes, it will cost extra, but getting personal attention to each individual case should quickly move most of them OFF welfare, and this "surge" can work down the list over time.
Yes, pretty easy, but so what? You have two facts, wholly insufficient to know what problems she may or may not face caring for the child, supporting the child and yes, preventing future pregnancies if that is her need. Where is your compassion?
It is where yours should be... With the innocent child(ren)...
Not the adult who you say is supposed to be "responsible" enough to not have pre-marital sex...
Or should at least be responsible enough to use effective reliable birth control...
So this person is 2 times "irresponsible" and you want to give them total control over babies... What are you thinking?
Here... You can't even get on the pill, use it consistently, and you are having pre-marital sex... No here is your baby(ies)... Jerry thinks you know best...
OK, you are right. If this woman was truly responsible enough to care for a child, she would have killed the child, either in the womb or shortly thereafter.
Those who do not abort their "mistakes" have taken responsibility for the child, usually love the child and try to raise the child well. You somehow want to punish her for trying to correct her one mistake and do right by the "innocent child." Why on God's green Earth would you not want to HELP her, and the child, to do that? If you want to sterilize all the "undesirables" to prevent future citizens from burdening the taxpayers (maybe a simple "one child policy"?) you go ahead. But what are you going to do about the millions of them already born?
You seem to keep forgetting that I am the one working proactively to reduce unplanned pregnancies. Where as you seem to want to keep people stupid, keep women barefoot / pregnant and then cut services for the innocent children as a means to force Parents to improve...
And now Mr Conservative says I am trying to punish her... What ever happen to irresponsible people need to bear the natural consequences of their choices and behaviors? Are you becoming a Liberal? :-)
As for the millions already born, they will continue on their way. Remember that my goal is to make it free and simple for people to control when they have children. The goal would zero unplanned conceptions.
And to ensure that the Angel Adams women of the world only have ~2 kids.
3. Make Long Acting Reversible Contraception and the Morning After Pill free and readily available for all. NO baby should be born unless the Baby Maker(s) are 100% wanting the child and feel prepared to care for it. (ie committed to being responsible capable Parents)
4. If a proven irresponsible Baby Maker who is on welfare (ie Angel Adams) gets pregnant. She should be forced to abort or give the Baby up for adoption. And if this happens more than once, her tubes should be tied.
5. The welfare payments and service should be set up to make recipients work, learn, mature and improve their self sufficiency.
6. The male Baby Makers must bear the consequences of their behavior. The female Baby Maker must name the Father so the State can ensure the required child support is paid. The cost may be higher than the money received, but the "free loading Baby Daddy" behavior must be dissuaded.
7. The State must ensure that Baby Makers and the Babies receive training, care, etc until they become a functional family. (ie Parents and Kids) This includes mandatory Parenting classes, Early Childhood Education, Inexpensive quality childcare, etc. Many of the Baby Makers are in this position because their role models were Baby Makers (ie not Parents). Someone has to train them what it means to be a Parent.
Repeating your prescription over and over does not alter the basic nature of it, which is COERCION by government, based on your wholesale assessment of an entire group of people as being "unfit" to have and rear children. You want to "prevent unplanned pregnancies." Great. unplanned according to whom? "Unwanted kids," according to whom? Mandatory parenting classes to teach WHAT? If BC is available and free to all, who pays for it? What do you do if women refuse to take it?
" Where as you seem to want to keep people stupid, keep women barefoot / pregnant and then cut services for the innocent children as a means to force Parents to improve..." You don't read what I write, do you?
A whole group? Welfare Moms should be limited to 2 kids unless they win the lottery... Sorry... Makes sense to me.
Unplanned / Unwanted based on mother's feedback...
Parenting classes: All the things people did not learn in their screwed up childhood.
Who pays? Who pays for the guard rails on our roads, our prisons that are full due in large part due to our letting kids be raised in irresponsible / incapable households...
B/C. Their choice as long as they are not on welfare. Otherwise see the list.
I read every word.. Unfortunately you have no real implementable plan. Just a lot of GOP sound bites.
No real plan? Hire more social workers, charge them with helping-- full service. Remove from them the requirements to follow oodles of rules just to hand out checks to the wrong people. Train current welfare recipients to we social workers. hand out school vouchers to poor people, offer GED and other training at essentially no charge. Help form child care co-ops and local church day care/pre-K. Offer parenting classes, budgeting classes, work training, and do NOT cut off benefits so long as they are cooperating in making their lives better. In short, treat them as real, individual human beings instead of "baby mamas," "bad parents," "screwed up childhoods," "welfare moms." It's all do-able; charities do it all the time but with far less resources.
The claim is made that "government must do it because charities cannot." Seems obvious that the reverse is closer to the reality. Government hasn't even recognized the problem to the degree you have, let alone considered even the poor solutions you suggest. And the hope they will come off their high horse and implement something like what I have suggested is unfortunately even more unlikely. It might rid us of that permanent dependent class that liberals want.
I am pretty sure the Liberals have been asking for more money for Social Workers and Job Training forever... Just to have Conservatives cut the funding... What am I missing here?
I mean I advocate for more Early Childhood education for unlucky kids and you say NO.
It seems you are willing to tax / spend when it is your idea. So confusing.
Now as for the effectiveness of charities. They have a HUGE ADVANTAGE just as private schools do. They only help people who are wanting to change... (ie the thirsty horses)
I am pretty sure the public system does great with those folks also...
SO what is your plan for the people who do not want to change? And their children?
I mean our buddy Angel has had public and private support and she is still an idiot free loader.
I am willing for government to spend when it is effective or "efficacious." I would add that if some lower level of government or private enterprise can do something even better, that is the right way to do it, but that is a further step beyond cleaning up the mess we have.
I would be all in favor of ECE if you could prove that having government run it did any good; the studies I have seen say they do not.
"I am pretty sure the public system does great with those folks also..." I cannot believe that. There is a huge difference between a system that sends you a check with no strings, while leaving you with all your problems, and a real person who tries to solve your problems and brings the check with them. I believe the vast majority WANT to improve their lot but lack the means, incentive and support to do so. And the tiny few like Angel can be dealt with by telling her that sticks exist if she doesn't learn to like carrots. Or, as a last resort, something that you propose for /everybody/ not living up to your standards, as a FIRST resort.
Sorry I can not see the difference between what we have today and what you envision...
As Sean and Laurie would remind us, today's system has social workers, training / work requirements, benefit restrictions, etc.
The only people who don't have limits are the kids.
/everybody/ is pretty small group.
Women on welfare with 2 kids...
And trying make baby 3, 4, 5, and so on...
Maybe you don't know today's system. The social workers are vastly overworked and determining "eligibility" takes up most of their time. If they actually helped their "clients" they would be out of a job. The work requirements are few and the training opportunities may be out there, but are severely underutilized. How is somebody who has never held a job supposed to go get training for something so foreign? Basics first, and the "plantation mentality" brought on by an anonymous, unseen but dependable check-writer has to be the first thing to go.
And really? You are going to allow a woman two huge mistakes before you order her tubes tied? Really, you ought to become more conservative and take us back about 50 years. Back then, we had a social worker who would make regular house calls, and the principal purpose was to determine if there was a "man in the house." Pregnancy was proof positive there was a man in the house, and the "man," whoever he was, immediately became responsible for those kids, not the welfare office. Welfare was for "widows and orphans." Again, this was done on a case-by-case basis, not the sweeping "everybody" rules you propose. Or do you just object to treating people as individual human beings?
So again, you want to hire more social workers and give them more authority and higher spending limits? They get to pick winners and losers?
Wisc Work Rules
And as a reminder, remember the article that showed it costs far more recover child support from Papa than it saves.
And all the while... Who is feeding the kids while you are implementing your plan?
Remember that a woman would need to make far more than 2 mistakes before tubal ligation became the action.
"4. If a proven irresponsible Baby Maker who is on welfare (ie Angel Adams) gets pregnant. She should be forced to abort or give the Baby up for adoption. And if this happens more than once, her tubes should be tied."
Post a Comment