Fundies and Government Aid

[formergothardite]

Abba, what is the difference between you refusing to work and wanting the government to support children you choose to have knowing you can't afford them, and your surfer neighbor who refuses to work and wants the government to support him? Besides the fact that you just hope one day your husband will get a job and can support you? Maybe the surfer dude is hoping a rich relative will leave him money and then he won't need government support?

[Witsec1]

No, I'm saying the guy who used to live next door who spent his days at the beach, and openly bragged about living on benefits and how he had no need to ever work, so why bother bettering himself, just enjoy life and surf, is probably in a different group to people who have plans for themselves. They're a minority, but they exist, and they give everyone else a bad name.

And thank you for your complement on my education, it just so happens I was educated around the dining room table, and never went to college. I hope to teach my children the same communication skills.

Your education, regardless of where it came from, is a privilege. Some people have parents that can give them a good enough education to function in the 21st century. Others do not. I want everyone to have access to a decent education, fundies are destroying our public education system.

You already have a family. I just don't understand why you wouldn't want to wait until your financial situation is more stable. If in a few years, your husband still hasn't had a steady job, will you go for #3? Is there any point where you would look into using birth control to devote your limited resources to your already born children?

ETA: I do note the spelling errors. I am comparing abba12 with the hardcore unemployed people I have met/worked with. Sounds to me like she is ooking down her nose at people whose life challenges she's never bothered to consider.

[Witsec7]

Our military are sacrificing their lives to protect us. What do those on welfare who keep popping out baby after baby after baby give in return for what they're receiving? We shouldn't be subsidizing religion, and we shouldn't be subsidizing politicians. I think politician pay should be capped at no more than twice the average salary in the US counting ALL perks.

I am pro choice. I want fundies, poor people all citizens to have the right to choose when to breed or to take jobs that give me a higher burden as a taxpayer. When I advocate to have their choice removed, I will also be advocating for my own choices, and those of families and friends to be regulated or removed.

I will leave in the bolded since it is pure bullshit and has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

[samurai_sarah]

(snip)

What I am debating is whether someone currently living off benefits should concieve a child, be it their first, second, third, or whatever.

Benefits are something you get when your back's against the wall. I gladly pay taxes for that. I understand that whoopsies happen. But I think of benefits as a loan. I give something now, because I don't know what might happen. One of these days, I might have to ask society for something back. But wilfully planning more kids than I can afford at the moment, while I'm on borrowed money, and write an ebook, instead of getting that training* that will help me get back on my feet? I find your attitude rude, inconsiderate, and frankly quite selfish. You're living on loaned money from a society you eschew. Yes, while you need it, I'll still cough up the money, but thankfully, I don't have to like it.

*ETA: I understand that your present situation, while you're pregnant, is not conducive to that, but from what I gather Australia does provide the means to do so as soon as possible.

[Elle]

You want people not to judge you for continuing to have kids while on welfare, but at the same time you want to judge all those"are on welfare with no intention of ever getting off of it". You know, many many people on welfare who are doing the best they can, trying to get training for a better job, taking whatever work comes along, hoping for a lucky break: they're exactly like you in other words, though they may be a different race or religion.

Abba is the type of welfare-user who makes all welfare people look bad. "I want it, therefore I should have it even if it means someone else has to work to pay for it."

If you've (general sense) got three kids you can't afford to feed without help, what the hell makes you think that having a couple more kids is not going to make it more difficult to get off welfare? If you can't get off with three, it's going to be much tougher getting off with five.

Children shouldn't seen as a luxury of the rich, but they should be seen as a luxury of those who can afford to raise them. They shouldn't be seen as an absolute right to the point that others who didn't make the choice for you to have then have to pay for your choice. They SHOULD be seen as LUXURY. They come with a very high cost, and that cost shouldn't be passed off onto those who had no voice in the decision to conceive and have that child.

If you work work work, and something bad happens and you need help for a while, I've got no problem with aid being given. That's what it's there for. But it's an immature abuse of the system to think you're entitled to get more money than you're already getting because you want another baby when you already can't afford the ones you have.

We desperately want another child, but we aren't having any more until we've got the means to support another one. It would be selfish and self-centered and immature to go ahead and have one and expect everyone else to subsidize our intentional choice.

Part of being an adult is saying No to getting what you want when you know YOU can not afford to pay the expenses ON YOUR OWN.

There's no way to mandate any of this, but I will participate in stigmatizing those who are already taking my money and decide to have more kids that I'll be paying for when I myself am not having another despite my desperate desire. I will harshly judge and stigmatize those who are all too happy to sit there forcing me to pay for their selfish choices that I'm depriving myself of because I can't afford to fulfill and support my wish.

[Elle]

I am pro choice. I want fundies, poor people all citizens to have the right to choose when to breed or to take jobs that give me a higher burden as a taxpayer. When I advocate to have their choice removed, I will also be advocating for my own choices, and those of families and friends to be regulated or removed.

I will leave in the bolded since it is pure bullshit and has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

I read that as we're subsiding military families, religion, and politicians. We shouldn't be funding religion of politicians. Churches should pay taxes and politicians shouldn't be using us like their personal wallets. How do you read it?

[Witsec1]

Abba, what is the difference between you refusing to work and wanting the government to support children you choose to have knowing you can't afford them, and your surfer neighbor who refuses to work and wants the government to support him? Besides the fact that you just hope one day your husband will get a job and can support you? Maybe the surfer dude is hoping a rich relative will leave him money and then he won't need government support?

Bingo. I can understand an unintended pregnancy, I can understand being so ground down by hopelessness and poverty that planning for the future seems like a joke. What I don't understand is holding on to this ideology of "every child is a blessing, God our fellow citizens will provide" when you don't really have a plan. And then looking down at other people on assistance for being lazy and selfish.

[TVR]

IS the $500 for 14 people a recent post on Momys? I remember seeing one a while ago and I was amazed that someone could do that, but then noticed that it was an old thread.

[Elle]

But that's exactly my point, just because we're unemployed this year dosen't mean we won't be earning a great wage next year. Just because my sister has a great stable job this year, dosen't mean she won't be unemployed next year.

You've got a better chance of remaining unemployed than your sister does of joining you. You're comparing something with a higher chance with something with a small chance and saying that because something has a small possibility of happening, that you should go ahead and do what you want. That's not exactly very smart.

Hey, we could have a drastic increase in income next year, so does that mean we should obligate ourselves to long-term expenses right now? No. That would be stupid.

[Mama Mia]

Elle,

I pay out pulettttyyy in taxes and you know what - fuck you. You know who qualifies for subsidized housing in my area ? Teachers, retail workers, store clerks, landscapers, nurses aides, office workers, construction workers, waitresses, etc etc etc

Should they all not have children because they are in careers that don't pay 75k a year ? No. So shut up.

Do some people scam the system, um yeah, of course. Do most people ? No.

I don't get to pick and choose where every dollar I pay out in taxes goes, and neither do you. If I did I would much rather pay for some one to have a decent place to live and food to eat than to pay for someone to go kill a civilian in fucking Iraq.

On another note -

Surprisingly I learned in a welfare training that the highest success rate for working their way off welfare, and not returning, was through self-employment. I was shocked, but in thinking about it and advantage of self-employment is people can often avoid high childcare costs and the hours might be more flexible.

[Feberin]

And if my husband currently had a 100k a year job I would have no garuntee that he would still have it when my child is born. Like I said to another poster, my husband was employed when our first was concieved, in a full time position at $30 an hour! There is no garuntees, and that's why the idea of deciding if you can afford a child based on your financial situation at the time of conception is so absurd. We had the financial stability with our first, people said it was 'perfect timing' for a baby, and yet when she actually arrived, she was born into a home completely dependent on welfare. My finances at the time of conception really have nothing to do with whether my baby will be born into a welfare home or not, so why should I not have a child based on such a false indication of whether or not we can 'afford' it.

While nobody can predict the future the best way to decide if you can afford a baby is to look at your current finanical situation. True somebody could loose their job, die or suffer from an illness/injury that makes them unable to work. And in those situations I would be very happy that there are safety nets available for that family. But if you can't afford the child currently and decide to have one anyways that's just poor planning. While I would still be happy that safety nets exist because those children aren't responsible for your current situation and deserve food and shelter at the same time I think you made a very BAD choice. Also if you are doing well financially before you have a baby then you should be saving up some money so you have your own safety net that can cover at least a few months of bills before you will have to look towards outside resouces/government aid.

[feministxtian]

While nobody can predict the future the best way to decide if you can afford a baby is to look at your current finanical situation. True somebody could loose their job, die or suffer from an illness/injury that makes them unable to work. And in those situations I would be very happy that there are safety nets available for that family. But if you can't afford the child currently and decide to have one anyways that's just poor planning. While I would still be happy that safety nets exist because those children aren't responsible for your current situation and deserve food and shelter at the same time I think you made a very BAD choice. Also if you are doing well financially before you have a baby then you should be saving up some money so you have your own safety net that can cover at least a few months of bills before you will have to look towards outside resouces/government aid.

^^^YES!!!!

[RR88]

Because someone else is paying for it, that's why. It's irresponsible and SELFISH to have kids just because you want them when you can't afford to raise them on your own. The system can not be sustained much longer with the way things are going, far too few people aging in for the huge numbers taking out. Part of being a responsible adult is having to say no to getting something you want when you know you can't afford it on your own. While you have the right to have kids if you want them since it's your body, that doesn't mean it's right or moral to have the if you know you are going to have to take money from the labor of others to support what you wanted to do.

Thank you.

[desertvixen]

Then I suggest you teach your children about spell check.

Lines like this are why I eventually hope to be as wise as experiencedd is.

[YPestis]

I had a friend who always wanted to be a stay at home mom and have two or three kids. However, her husband went through bouts of unemployment, the longest after the birth of their first child. Today, she is the primary breadwinner (husband is struggling with employment) and she is happy with her one child. She gets harassed with having the second child but she doesn't believe she can afford to raise a second child. I think she is being responsible about her choices.

Sure, everyone can go through rough patches. Many people will meet up with unexpected financial issues. That doesn't mean we should ignore our financial situation when making expensive choices such as having children. Having a child knowing you can't provide for them is kind of irresponsible. If I was unable to feed myself, why would I want to KNOWINGLY condemn my child to the same situation? Horrible things happen. That doesn't mean I should never plan ahead. That's like saying one should avoid health insurance because people with insurance still get sick and die. There's no guarantees in live, but we can make it bearable by making wise choices. Welfare should be used judiciously and has a temporary measure to get back on one's feet. It shouldn't be used to satisfy personal lifestyle choices.

[bananacat]

I can't agree with the "advice" that you shouldn't have kids if you can't afford them. What about unintentional pregnancies? I'm as pro-choice as they come, which means I would be absolutely against attempts to coerce abortion for poor women. It's easy to say that they should just use birth control, but sometimes women get pregnant anyway. And I don't like the way this argument slides dangerously close to claiming that sex is a luxury for the rich.

And the simple truth is that the vast majority of us could never afford to have kids if it weren't for the massive welfare that we all get. It's not just people who get food stamps, Medicaid, and WIC. Most of us got a free education and will get the same for our own children. Most of us couldn't afford to educated our kids if we had to pay for it ourselves. If we were consistent in applying the standard of not having kids until you can afford them, then none of us here would ever have kids.

I can and will snark on people who are neglectful of their kids. I don't believe having kids is a right. But nor do I believe that having kids should be a privilege of the rich.

And no, kids also shouldn't be a privilege of "those who can afford them" either because none of us can afford to give our kids everything we think would be best for them.

I think of welfare the opposite way of most people. It's not about taking money from me to subsidize bad choices made by other people. It's about using my money wisely so that I spend less money in the future. Money spent on children especially leads directly to money saved in the future. It's an investment.

[Witsec7]

Lines like this are why I eventually hope to be as wise as experiencedd is.

Not wise, just too lazy to post something cogent. I figure this is my last opportunity to be nominated class clown. :lol:

[bananacat]

Elle, can you afford to send your kids to private school? If not, then by your own standard you are selfish and mooching off the system by having kids you can't afford and taking advantage of free public school. You might think that's different because it's welfare that is offered to every child, but frankly I think medical insurance should be offered to every child too, and I wouldn't object to free food for every child of every income class. We already have the automatic tax breaks for children which is basically a way to give welfare to people who are too proud to take it.

[Funky Chicken]

Abba12 says she is in Australia. Here, people are given a "baby bonus" [link=]http://www.familyassist.gov.au/[/link] for reproducing, which no doubt colours her thinking... Also I suspect Centrelink (welfare) benefits here provide more than the US welfare system does, although I'm not 100% sure on that. And health care here is free.

[feministxtian]

I can't agree with the "advice" that you shouldn't have kids if you can't afford them. What about unintentional pregnancies? I'm as pro-choice as they come, which means I would be absolutely against attempts to coerce abortion for poor women. It's easy to say that they should just use birth control, but sometimes women get pregnant anyway. And I don't like the way this argument slides dangerously close to claiming that sex is a luxury for the rich.

And the simple truth is that the vast majority of us could never afford to have kids if it weren't for the massive welfare that we all get. It's not just people who get food stamps, Medicaid, and WIC. Most of us got a free education and will get the same for our own children. Most of us couldn't afford to educated our kids if we had to pay for it ourselves. If we were consistent in applying the standard of not having kids until you can afford them, then none of us here would ever have kids.

I can and will snark on people who are neglectful of their kids. I don't believe having kids is a right. But nor do I believe that having kids should be a privilege of the rich.

And no, kids also shouldn't be a privilege of "those who can afford them" either because none of us can afford to give our kids everything we think would be best for them.

I think of welfare the opposite way of most people. It's not about taking money from me to subsidize bad choices made by other people. It's about using my money wisely so that I spend less money in the future. Money spent on children especially leads directly to money saved in the future. It's an investment.

Unintentional pregnancies or "oops babies" happen. I think this centers more on intentionally expanding a family w/o the financial wherewithal to adequately support the family. "Affording" kids means different things to different people. Like I said earlier, I'm not talking about a brand new car at age 16, a fully funded college fund and a week long Disney vacation every year. Actually, college and cars are 2 things I refused to pay for with my kids.

There's a big difference between using the local public school system (which is funded by taxpayers) and milking the system for all its worth to support some selfish idea of a quiver full of kids that are not supported in the manner they should be.

I had an "oops" baby. She didn't get a sibling until I was married...I had 2 with the psycho-X. Then when I remarried I gained 4 bonus children and we fostered another for a total of 8 kids. It was incredibly tight even with a quite generous income. The kids did not get new cars or college educations. The ones who went to college found a way. The ones who didn't also found a way. I would have loved to have a couple more babies, but we were strapped with the kids that were already here. It would not have been fair to the ones that were already here to add to the bunch. Ergo the alternative of permanent birth control was the wiser choice.

[bananacat]

I don't think there's such a big difference between using public school and using food stamps except the stigma and perception that are associated with them. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree though, because to me it just sounds like "I got mine, screw you". The truth is that welfare babies are exceedingly rare in the sense that women will have them just for more welfare. The people who have "too many" kids would most likely have them regardless. Refusing government aid to them wouldn't stop them from having those kids; it would only punish them. And I believe that every single person has a right to enough food.

[Coconut Flan]

I think the big difference in public aid and public schools is the legal definition. One has to qualify and meet statutory income and resource limits to be on aid. Public schools are open to all who live in the district unless they get expelled or something along those lines. My kids "free" public education wasn't all that free considering my property taxes that went to funding it not that I object but I was paying and continue to pay for schools and their operation.

I do think all people should be fed and because of that give regularly to various charities who help the hungry.

I still will as another commenter has said similarly give the side eye to people who have more children than they can care for reasonably and in that I include deliberately conceiving while "on the dole." We shall disagree, but life would be dull if we all agreed about everything.

[Feberin]

I can't agree with the "advice" that you shouldn't have kids if you can't afford them. What about unintentional pregnancies? I'm as pro-choice as they come, which means I would be absolutely against attempts to coerce abortion for poor women. It's easy to say that they should just use birth control, but sometimes women get pregnant anyway. And I don't like the way this argument slides dangerously close to claiming that sex is a luxury for the rich.

I don't think sex should be a luxury for the rich. In fact I think free or extremely cheap contraception should be available to everyone. If somebody accidently gets pregnant then that just like somebody who suddenly looses their job gets my sympathy that it happened at a bad time. But the people we are talking about in this thread are actively trying to have more children while in dire circumstances and relying on government aid.

And the simple truth is that the vast majority of us could never afford to have kids if it weren't for the massive welfare that we all get. It's not just people who get food stamps, Medicaid, and WIC. Most of us got a free education and will get the same for our own children. Most of us couldn't afford to educated our kids if we had to pay for it ourselves. If we were consistent in applying the standard of not having kids until you can afford them, then none of us here would ever have kids.

If you send your child to public school then you are paying for it. Be it property taxes, the portion of your state income tax that goes to your county/city/whatever, you still pay for it. And if you rent then your rental property owner pays real estate taxes too. Also it is something available to all children. If there was healthcare available to all children (I wish this was the case) then I would think of that differently too.

And no, kids also shouldn't be a privilege of "those who can afford them" either because none of us can afford to give our kids everything we think would be best for them.

There is a big difference between needs and wants. Nobody on here is saying that kids need designer clothes, game systems or fancy vacations. But they do need food, shelter and basic clothing.

I think of welfare the opposite way of most people. It's not about taking money from me to subsidize bad choices made by other people. It's about using my money wisely so that I spend less money in the future. Money spent on children especially leads directly to money saved in the future. It's an investment.

In some cases, this is true. For people that really have hit a hard spot, welfare can mean the difference between kids being able to eat a full meal, concentrate in school, get good grades, maybe get a scholarship, and improve their lot in life. In other cases you have fundies with 12 kids that are providing them with an abysmal education at the SOTDRT. Of course all kids should have the right to food on the table and a roof over their heads. But I don't think you're getting much out of your investment in a lot of these fundies on welfare cases.

[Elle]

As I said before, I openly stated at the begining of my post I am a fundie lurker, so I am writing from the perspective of a one income family. I will be at home, homeschooling and raising my children for the forseeable future. I hope to work (very) part time as a doula in the next few years, I'm in the process of writing an ebook, and I dream of one day, when my children are grown, becomming a midwife, but in the forseeable future I will not be working in any 'traditional' employment. It also happens that I am disabled, cutting my employability considerably, but this is a secondary factor. If I were able bodied I might have taken on some part time work, but with such high unemployment rates no one will hire a disabled person unless in a specialised field, which I am not qualified for.

If you're able-bodied enough to punch out as many kids as you can, then I have a hard time believing you're too disabled to work. I don't care how un-PC that may be, but pregnancy and childbirth is HARD, and if you can do that, then you can sit on your ass somewhere answering phones.

Don't expect a damned bit of sympathy here if you CAN work, but because of your religion, you expect others who work to support you and your kids because you won't. You are a classic leach on the system for any food, cash, or housing benefits you reap because you refuse to get a job or to even try. Your kids deserve to eat, but you deserve to be forced to work, like it or not.

[Elle]

Elle,

I pay out pulettttyyy in taxes and you know what - fuck you. You know who qualifies for subsidized housing in my area ? Teachers, retail workers, store clerks, landscapers, nurses aides, office workers, construction workers, waitresses, etc etc etc

In other words, people who are doing what they can to put back into the system, not people who are sitting there popping out babies because they think they're entitled to being supported without putting in a dime. So fuck YOU.