Why Is California Penalizing Poor Women for Wanting to Be Parents?

[xchrom]

http://www.thenation.com/blog/179242/why-california-penalizing-poor-women-wanting-be-parents



California is generally thought of as getting reproductive health policy right. In January, the state added abortion providers at a time when clinics elsewhere are fighting restrictions that would have them shut down. But when it comes to poor women’s ability to choose whether and when to grow their families, California has some catching up to do. Since 2002, eight of twenty-four states with a maximum family grant, also knows as a family cap, have repealed the laws that created them, citing concerns that they’re not effective. California—with its progressive image and all three branches controlled by Democrats—is a holdout.

The policy does what its name suggests—caps the number of people in a family who can receive cash benefits through CalWORKS, the state’s welfare program. If a mother already has a child when she applies for help, that child will be covered assuming her application is approved. But if she gives birth down the line, that baby is out of luck. The approximately $120 per month that child would have received if she had already existed at the time of the application is denied the family. (That’s right, just $120 a month. As Grace Meza-Betancourt, a 38-year-old mother whose family has been affected by the cap, put it when we spoke yesterday: “What makes people think you’re having babies just to get aid from the government?”)

In the twenty years since this exclusion of additional children from CalWORKS was put in place, it’s had no impact on the state’s birth rate, according to a 2013 report from the Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice at Berkeley Law. Women receiving CalWORKS benefits generally have one or two children, which puts them in line with other families in the state.

State Senator Holly Mitchell is advancing the fight to repeal the policy. Today, the bill she authored, SB 899, gets its first vote of this year’s legislative session. Today’s committee hearing is preparation for what some see as the real test. On May 1 the bill goes to the budget committee, where lawmakers will take a closer look at the price tag. If it passes, the state could expect up to a $220 million increase in CalWORKS grants in the first year after the cap is removed, according to a legislative analysis. Mitchell introduced a similar proposal last year, and that bill’s death was attributed to its projected costs.

[el_bryanto]

1. Is the opposition to this change mostly a budgetary matter?

$220 million is a pretty large increase.

Bryant

[badtoworse]

2. If you can't afford one child, it's highly irresponsible to have more children.

Why should taxpayers be on the hook for what is basically a lack of personal responsibility?

[seveneyes]

4. Good question

It's not like there is a shortage of children born without the means to properly care for them.

[laundry_queen]

7. No, that doesn't sound republican at ALL

I think I've heard that argument verbatim on Fox.


First of all, accidents happen. Second of all, no matter what the circumstances of a child's birth is, the child itself should NEVER be punished because of the mistakes of a parent. Third, $120 is about a fraction of what you actually NEED for a baby...so it's not like people are running out getting pregnant on purpose to get that extra money. Anyone who thinks that is being dishonest, or is an idiot or a heartless republican (But I repeat myself)

I find that people who think poor women are having babies to get more funds are usually people who haven't actually HAD babies.

Oh, and I'd like to remind everyone that birth control is also expensive...I'm not sure what California does to help out with that, but trying to NOT have a child can also be expensive. My BCP costs me $40 every 3 months WITH good coverage. I think it's about $60/MONTH without. Not to mention having to visit the doctor every 6 months for a prescription...I'm in Canada so at least I don't have to worry about THAT.

[BuelahWitch]

8. Accidents are covered

A family can get the additional benefit if a woman conceives while using Norplant, Depo-Provera or an IUD, or if she’s been sterilized and somehow becomes pregnant. A second exception allows the benefit for women who can prove that they’ve conceived as a result of rape or incest.

[laundry_queen]

10. You don't mention BCP

guess you're only covered if you use 'approved' methods. Or if you can 'prove' you've been raped.

Unreal.

[BuelahWitch]

16. BCP = birth control pills, I guess?

You can't really prove you've been using them. You can always pop out the pills and flush 'em.

[Orrex]

24. That's a very common scam, in fact.

Low-income women are lining up to get birth control pills and flush them down the toilet, all for the sake of milking that sweet $120 monthly cash cow.

Somebody needs to rein in these parasites who've tapped into the nation's richest revenue stream. I'm thankful that we've got you on our side to act as gatekeeper.

Godspeed!

[BuelahWitch]

25. Yes, of course that's what I'm accusing them of

I'm not even going to bother explaining why I said that, if you aren't bright enough to read the thread, you wouldn't understand anyway.

[Orrex]

31. Love it!

The strength of one's position is inversely proportional to the speed with which they launch wild and ill-founded attacks on other people's intelligence.

[BuelahWitch]

33. Why do you want poor kids to have such a shitty life?

We're not talking about the ones that were already there when the family went on public assistance, we're talking about bringing MORE into the world.

[bettyellen]

35. you're right- only the middle class plus should have children. the unfortunate poor should not.

[BuelahWitch]

39. Why does a woman's "desire" to have more babies

trump the quality of life those children will get? If there's ever a need to "think about the children" that's the time to do it.
BTW, that goes for muddle class or rich people who aren't mentally capable of dealing with kids either.

[Dorian Gray]

123. There are

plenty of children who are brought up in a lower income household who have a fantastic quality of life. They are loved and treated well, and they deserve to exist.

[Orrex]

40. That's a straw man. I don't want them to have a shitty life.

Why do you believe that defunding children will cause low income women to have fewer of them?

Is there any evidence whatsoever that such a policy has ever been successful?

[BuelahWitch]

41. Where did I ever say that children should be defunded?

I never posted such a thing.

[Orrex]

47. In post 8 you argued that only certain "accidental" conceptions are permitted

Your conspuous failure to allow for other types of "accidents" as well as your bizarre "they flush the pills" scheme puts you exactly in line with standard RW talking points that lead to defunding of low income assistance programs.

Your immedate attempt to attack my intelligence also puts you in line with RW tactics.


If it was not your intent to paint yourself as a RW apologist, then you should have worded your posts differently.

[BuelahWitch]

55. Once again, it's not worth an explanation

Perhaps you should read the article, and bring it up with the state of California instead of ranting on a message board.
Have a lovely day!

[Orrex]

57. Perhaps you should ask yourself why others have identified your nonsense as nonsense

Have whatever kind of day suits you.

[BuelahWitch]

58. Because maybe I don't give a flying fuck?

[Orrex]

62. No, that's not it.

If you didn't give a flying fuck, then you wouldn't keep replying.

But by all means feel free to keep showing us how much it doesn't matter to you.

[CreekDog]

164. about children?

if you're trying to say otherwise, you're failing.

[bettyellen]

43. plenty of wealthy people have shitty lives too. let's force rich assholes to take BC shots also...

because the pill is not enough. We must mandate specific hormones for all women we don't want to have children.

[BuelahWitch]

44. You won't get any argument from me, I'm all for it.

I believe children should be loved, wanted and *able to be provided for* no matter where their parents are in the economic spectrum.

[bettyellen]

46. yes, impoverished women should shun men and be punished if "accidents" occur- awesome!

[ForgoTheConsequence]

48. Well duh.

It's a new form of pro choice, you only get a "choice" if you meet strict qualification guidelines.



Amazing that this shit is being posted on a "progressive" forum, isn't it?

[bettyellen]

53. "progressive" it ain't. Thoughtful and compassionate is lacking here, big time.

[alp227]

189. Well, is it really an individual choice if the choice is a burden on the state?

I believe in the adage, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Whether for second hand smoke, marriage equality, or having children while poor.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

194. Burden on the state?

So states shouldn't fund planned parenthood either?

[alp227]

195. False equivalence.

Seriously equating a health service to welfare?

[ForgoTheConsequence]

196. I'm equating a social service with a social service.

Both funded by tax payers. You can't pick and choose, you're the one who used conservative phrasing like "burdening the state".

[alp227]

197. I disagree. Planned Parenthood provides all sorts of reproductive health care.

On the other hand, how should the state ensure a finite resource (money for helping the needy) is used as efficiently as possible? I may sound Republican, but don't you think you gotta draw the line somewhere? I do not believe children should have to suffer for the sins of their parents. Goes both ways: Children have the right not to starve, but parents should be informed about the consequences of their choices.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

198. And money provides for all sorts of provisions.

You're for funding Planned Parenthood, but not for funds going to hungry children. You don't support choice if you are only in favor of one side.


As for the "finite amount of money" argument, it could be used for cutting any social service program.


"Children have the right not to starve, but parents should be informed about the consequences of their choices."

And what happens if -even after being informed- they make the wrong "choice", and the "consequence" is another child? Do you say "tough shit, we warned you"?

[alp227]

200. It's a freaking hard dilemma.

How can the state encourage responsible family planning without criminalizing poverty? I wish there was a solution I could easily explain.

[BuelahWitch]

50. You are just determined to be angry at someone

And I guess I got picked. Knock yourself out and have a lovely day!
PS. Read the article, it mentions "accidents."

[bettyellen]

51. Not angry at all, I'm laughing at this bullshit. Sorry if you read the tone wrong.

[AverageJoe90]

80. This, pretty much. nt

[CreekDog]

165. this goes with your talking points denying climate change

but at least you're consistent.

[AverageJoe90]

174. What "denial"?

And furthermore, what in the *fuck* does this have to do with climate change?

[Orrex]

49. That's ridiculous

Women should be kept on a system of conveyor belts and routed through breeding facilities to be impregnated at the time and place chosen for the men's convenience.

Duh!

[ForgoTheConsequence]

54. True, unless they pass the "ok the procreate" test.

Maybe the poster above can let us know what it is? Income? Race? Education level?



"Choice" is only for the privileged middle class, I guess.

[bettyellen]

56. it's starting to sound that way- DUers comfortably judging poorer women for daring to get pregnant..

don't you know once you have a baby, you should stop being sexual for the good of the country? Men are there only to help pay for your mistakes, but god forbid you go near one without a state approved IUD or injection. Yet these same people rail about "freedom" when it comes to purchasing guns. Yep. Because that is the priority.

[joeglow3]

59. In fairness, they are not telling other to buy guns for them

[bettyellen]

64. LOL, but we're just steps away from China's family planning with pregnant women being incarcerated

for falling down or refusing to take drugs. Wouldn;t be shocked to see people float forced sterilizations here these days.
What a RW shit show.

[joeglow3]

65. I am surprised we have not seen it

On the flip side, my wife is an RN at an OB/GYN's office. They had a patient who had her 5th or 6th kid and was in her mid-20's and utilizing government assistance. She WANTED to be sterilized, but only had medicaid and it would not pay for it because she was too young.

[bettyellen]

91. And I wanted a IUD or sterilization in my 20's and 30's but doctors refused me both- not trusting me

to know I didn't want kids ever. Even the IUD, as they were concerned it would effect my future (unwanted) fertility. So instead, I got 25 years of hormones pushed on me- hormones like Nuvaring that put me at a much greater risk of stroke and plunged me into deep PMS instantly. Hormones are not as easy on your body as people assume.
Because no one trusted me that I knew my own mind. Fucking insulting. Poor woman!! Let us sign waivers if we are adults.

[Orrex]

67. "Forced sterilization" is such an ugly term

Think of it instead as "enhanced non-reproduction."

[Dr. Strange]

206. Spoken like a true Bene Tleilax.

[Orrex]

207. And they should have oval faces, dammit.

[CreekDog]

163. why do you? withholding assistance for those kids pretty much guarantees it

oh, i see your logic. if they get benefits they'll have a shitty life. so you take them away, which will make their lives...more shitty.

well you get a prize for convincing yourself that total nonsense is not total nonsense.

[TheKentuckian]

149. Well, what is the alternative way to take other than pure tongue in cheek not being recognized

to "You can't really prove you've been using them. You can always pop out the pills and flush 'em."?

When your previous point was " Accidents are covered

A family can get the additional benefit if a woman conceives while using Norplant, Depo-Provera or an IUD, or if she’s been sterilized and somehow becomes pregnant. A second exception allows the benefit for women who can prove that they’ve conceived as a result of rape or incest.".

Now if the posting in the thread is caustic sarcasm, fine. However, do keep in mind that facial expressions and tone don't always translate well enough in text to basically call someone an idiot for not getting it.

So, if there is some alternative other than a shtick missed or saying EXACTLY what you said then I'm also too stupid to grasp the genius at work here so maybe if there are alternatives maybe just maybe you could deign to clarify before going to the insults, if folks don't follow you.

[leftyohiolib]

18. it is a good question. you know what else sounds very r.w. like? demanding people take

personal responsibility for their health care. why is it we dems can demand people take personal responsibility for their health care and not personal resposibility for their actions. "accidents" should be prevented and if you cant afford children maybe you should rethink actions that might get you there so that you dont have an "accident".

btw if you accept a penis into your vagina and get pregnant it's not an "accident". no birth control is 100%

[laundry_queen]

28. Who is demanding people take 'personal responsibility' for their health care?

Not me, that's for sure.

And asking people to never have sex is totally unrealistic. How well is that 'abstinence education' working for ya?

[leftyohiolib]

60. we dems are demanding that - that was the whole push behind the aca

no one is asking people not to have sex. just remember there is sex that doesnt include intercourse and if you have intercourse you could have a baby, even on b.c.
the point is if youre on assistance for children you already have maybe one should rethink having more unless you plan to take care off them w/o tax-payer assistance, instead of complaining about how the tax payers are not going to cover every child you decide to have whether accidently or on purpose.

[laundry_queen]

66. Well don't lump me in

since I'm Canadian so not a dem and I'm not a big fan of the ACA (big single payer advocate here, very anti-private insurance). I never demanded anything - I'm not a hypocrite. That said, I've never seen what you are talking about anyway...not as a 'whole' when talking about dems - only by a few vocal control freaks.

So you are saying, "no one is asking people not to have sex" but you advocate PUNISHING people when they do and get pregnant? Now you are just splitting hairs. 2 sides of the same coin.

You are trying to punish people who have 'accidents' by not wanting to help them out which in turn punishes the kids and by extension - society (but most lefties know that already). To go on about 'taxpayer's money' and 'welfare queens' - those are rw talking points. Use them here and expect to be called out about it. How about women who had children when they could pay for them, but then something happens so they can't...do they get the same scorn when taxpayers' money helps them? Should they have 'planned' better? Should people hold of having kids until they are set for life, you know, 'in case'? How irresponsible of them, to not predict the future and not be rich!


Attitudes like yours holds all of society back. Money spent on children is an INVESTMENT in the future according to research.

[leftyohiolib]

76. i wasnt lumping you in i was only responding to your post

So you are saying, "no one is asking people not to have sex" but you advocate PUNISHING people when they do and get pregnant? Now you are just splitting hairs. 2 sides of the same coin.

punishing? that's an odd way to put it. not supporting someone's choices with taxpayer dollars is not punishing, people are supposed to take care of their children on their own. im just sayin that if youre taking taxpayer dollars for your kids maybe you ought to slow down on the baby-making till you gert back on feet . that isnt punishing, you are not entitled to public assistance (unless u qualify ) but the public (that includes me) doesnt mind helping but people should not be taking advantage of taxpayer assistance by having child after child

How about women who had children when they could pay for them, but then something happens so they can't...

from the article If a mother already has a child when she applies for help, that child will be covered assuming her application is approved. But if she gives birth down the line, that baby is out of luck.

Money spent on children is an INVESTMENT in the future according to research.
yes and it's the parents that should be doing the investing in that child. if she cant public assistance is there to help. but there is only a finite amount of money that need to goto alot of people and to stay on it while having child after child is taking advantage of a finite resource. a line has to be drawn some where.

[laundry_queen]

86. Again,

if you are worried about taxpayer's dollars, then the BEST place to spend the money IS on the children...you want return for your buck that's how you do it. It's clear you aren't interested in how taxpayer's dollars are best spent...you ARE interested in punishing poor women for having kids. You don't see it that way. "people are supposed to take care of their kids on their own" No shit, but if they can't? take away benefits so the kids starve? Make the mothers even more destitute? You do understand that poverty is a cycle right? That studies show living in poverty changes the very wiring in a child's brain? That the wiring of the brain predisposes a child to a lifetime of poverty without intense, targeted aid? I'm guessing you don't know any of that, so you resort to, "I don't want to pay for anyone's kid!"

[CreekDog]

162. that's the way that poster rolls

on any given topic, if you're curious what the talking points are, look there.

[laundry_queen]

173. Oh yeah.

I've noticed. See, I have this issue where I actually remember which usernames post what....lol.

[ScreamingMeemie]

9. It's about choice.

[badtoworse]

13. How so?

[delta17]

108. No one is limiting anyone's choices.

Who is saying they can't choose whether to have more kids or not? They just might not get assistance for them. Thousands of families decide they can't afford anymore children.

[PasadenaTrudy]

15. Exactly +1 n/t

[snooper2]

20. interesting, I always thought this was a spoof :)

[rug]

21. It's highly irresponsible to set up a trust fund for a child who will screw the next generation.

This is not about fiscal responsibility; it's about class privilege.

No child should ever have to prove its worth to society.

[badtoworse]

23. "This is not about fiscal responsibility"

Correct. It's about personal responsibity on the part of the parents.

[etherealtruth]

94. Just wondering ... how you would feel about someone like me ...

Two of my three pregnancies were not planned ... I have a couple of degrees and the father of my children was a VP at a fortune 500 Company .... I am assuming that the number of children we had is irrelevant because of our affluence ... am I wrong? Are unplanned pregnancies only OK for the affluent?

What if tragedy had struck and we were thrust into poverty ... should we then have lost our family?

We did eventually divorce ... had I not been able to support my children ... which one should not have been fed?

Is parenthood only for the affluent?

Do you realize that you are posting elitist tripe? Do you care that you are parroting Rush Limbaugh, FOX "news" and just about every right wing pundit?

[badtoworse]

106. The issue is whether you were already receiving CalWORKS when you had additional children

If you already had children when circumstances forced you to seek state aid, I would say that, unfortunately, things like that can happen to good people. You would have my sympathy.

Once you are in the program, it's a very different situation. You wouldn't be in CalWORKS unless you lacked the means to care for the children you already have. If you have more children after that, I would say that you are irresponsible and selfish. You're irresponsible because you're ignoring the fact that the additional children will put demands on your limited resources and all of your children will be the worse for it. I would say you're selfish because (rape excepted) you got pregnant by putting your own gratification ahead of the welfare of your kids.

I see parenting as a very high responsibility and if you can't care for your children, you have an obligation to do whatever it takes to avoid getting pregnant, including not having sex. As far as the affluent having unplanned pregnancies, I don't think that is good either. Presumably, the children will be well taken care of economically, but the question I would ask is how the parents feel about and deal with their unplanned children. Becoming a parent is life changing and if you weren't intending to do it, will you resent the impact that children are having on your lifestyle? If so, the resentment will almost certainly have negative impacts on the child's upbringing and probably the marriage as well. I don't think you can generalize about that - it's a complex matter and every situation will be different. My own view is that children should be conceived because they are wanted.

[etherealtruth]

121. Your issue ....

Last edited Fri Apr 11, 2014, 06:18 AM - Edit history (1)

if there is a cap on the duration of benefits ... Paying for four children for four years (born prior to the application for assistance) = Paying for four children for four years (born while on assistance) ... unless of course, one wants to identify good people (misfortune struck after the birth of children) vs the bad poor (people) .... you seem pretty clear on what constitutes the deserving and undeserving and it has nothing to do with budget constraints. "I would say that, unfortunately, things like that can happen to good people. You would have my sympathy. "

" ... you have an obligation to do whatever it takes to avoid getting pregnant, including not having sex. "

“Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well- warmed, and well-fed.”
― Herman Melville

There are a great number of people that share your thoughts and express them(almost verbatim) .... google many of the phrases you use, you will find many like minded people... It is very interesting that you mirror views the Heritage Foundation .

[badtoworse]

136. You might have a point if the state had unlimited resources, but it doesn't.

Obviously, four years of benefits cost the same regardless of when they're provided, but that's where the similarity ends because the timing has other impacts. There is only so much money budgeted for CalWORKS and unnecessarily adding to the state's burden means there will be less money available for other recipients. Going to the state and seeking help because of circumstances beyond your control is one thing, but asking the state for more money to cover needs you could have prevented is completely different. Sorry, but if you are receiving state aid, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect you to act in a way that does not add to the state's burden.

Nowhere in my posts have I criticized the poor, so your Melville quote doesn't apply at all. This is about personal responsibility and I don't think we should hold the poor to a higher standard than the affluent. At the same time, I don't believe they should be held to a lower standard either.

[PotatoChip]

143. States receive TANF money in the form of block grants from the federal government.

They (the states) are allowed quite a bit of leverage as to how they administer the benefits, but must follow some basic federal guidelines.

A couple of examples of the federal guidelines would be:

1) Time limited TANF benefits of no more than 5 years. (States can limit the time to less than that though)
2) TANF recipients must work 30 hours/week if they have children under 6, or 20 hours/week if they have children under 6.

[badtoworse]

146. The requirements seem reasonable, but we are still talking finite resources.

[CreekDog]

168. she pointed out that you referred to people with money as "good people"

as opposed to moms on welfare.

we got ya.

[CreekDog]

166. then why do you support holding the child responsible?

hmmm?

[badtoworse]

167. See Post #161

[CreekDog]

169. do us a favor and read your own nonsense

[hamsterjill]

34. I have to agree with you on this one.

There comes a point where reality hits and we all must look at what we can and cannot afford. To continue to have children in a family where its members are already struggling to have food, clothing, etc. only increases those struggles for the already-present members.

My only concern here is that from what I'm reading, all of the responsibility and blame is being laid at the feet of the mothers. What about the fathers? It takes two to tango, AND there should be an appropriate and solid means of holding fathers financially responsible for the needs of their children.

And before anyone slams my post - YES, there are certainly always accidents, rape, etc. But my comments are directed to those situations where someone chooses to become pregnant.

[badtoworse]

72. The fathers should absolutely have to take their share of responsibility

I didn't think I needed to point that out.

[hamsterjill]

78. You didn't - my bad.

I just re-read my post and I didn't make it clear enough that "what I'm reading here" refers to the thread...not your post specifically.

[badtoworse]

79. OK

[Hippo_Tron]

112. There are two solutions: starve the children or sterilize the mother

Which would you prefer?

Or there's option C, which is to recognize that we can afford as a society to subsidize the welfare of children.

[hamsterjill]

144. No, there are more than two options.

There is the ability to educate sexually active adults about birth control and family planning, etc. and the fact that having children costs money, and that if adults choose to have children, they are going to need to be responsible for the financial needs of those children.

What is wrong with asking parents to be responsible for their children? I don't understand the disagreement with that.

[Hippo_Tron]

179. You can ask and educate all you want, some people will STILL have more kids than they can afford...

At that point do you sterilize the parents, starve the children, or provide assistance? It's really a simple question.

[hamsterjill]

186. The culture of expecting help must change.

Here we go. I can see the posts now insisting that I'm some Republican troll. I assure you that I am not. But I do believe in personal responsibility. I also can see the logic that when more are on some sort of assistance than ones working and paying taxes, the mathematics alone become an issue.

I don't know the answer to your question. If I absolutely had to pick one of the choices you list, I would certainly feed the children first for as long as that could be sustained economically. But it cannot continue if there's no money to do it. I might offer the parents voluntary sterilization, but I don't see how they could be forced to be sterilized. One would think parents who are unable to feed and clothe the children they already have would not want to have more and might voluntarily be sterilized, but that's a whole other argument.

If the rich paid their fair share of taxes, then the country could afford to take care of more impoverished children, but tell me when that's going to happen! If we spent money on people instead of wars, that would help tremendously.

Society is going to have to return to there being a big and bad social stigma for bringing children into the world without the means to care for them. That won't solve all of the problem, but the existing attitude if some who simply expect government assistance has got to be curbed some how.

So let me turn the tables and ask you a question. What would you do when the money runs out?

[Hippo_Tron]

187. The money isn't running out...

We're the richest nation on the face of the planet. If we eve get to the point where we actually can't afford to feed our own people (not just to the point where we're unwilling) then we have much bigger problems to deal with than poor people who having too many kids, since the entire global economy will have collapsed.

Seriously if you're asking me to respond to a scenario where your assumptions are that we're never going to make the rich pay more taxes and that we're just going to keep spending more on endless wars until the country goes bankrupt, then why in god's name are you posting on a liberal activist message board?

I don't accept your assumptions and my answer is that we tax the rich and stop spending money on endless wars so that we can take care of our people just like every other western nation on the planet does.

But in the meantime, if you're looking for a more immediate solution I've got one. Free birth control and real sex education in schools. You'll drastically reduce the number of people needing public assistance, far more than by making futile attempts to further stigmatize something that is already just about as stigmatized as you can possibly get.

[hamsterjill]

199. Then why do we already have hungry people in America?

Re-read my post. Of course the answer is to tax the rich and stop spending money on stupid wars. But let's make that happen. Try as we might, we haven't been able to get it done yet. Got any brilliant answer for that? If so, please share your brilliance with the Democrats in office.

Money is a finite resource even when it is plentiful. More going out than coming in...get it???!!! I don't think my basic concept is being grasped here.

Of course we need birth control and sex education, but what happens when people start refusing to use birth control or insist on religious objections? The rest of us should not have to finance someone's desire to breed incessantly. It takes personal responsibility and people must be held accountable for taking care of the children they choose to have.

And I post on this liberal message board because I AM LIBERAL! I don't appreciate someone questioning my right to be here.

Sheesh!

[Hippo_Tron]

111. Be that as it may, do you propose we let the child go hungry?

Because that's the alternative to public assistance. You may deem the choice of the parents irresponsible but there is no solution that doesn't punish the child rather than the parent for that choice, other than forced sterilization (good luck with that one). If it helps, the amount you're paying for the decision parents' decision that you deem irresponsible is a pittance compared to the welfare we give to corporations.

[lostincalifornia]

151. That is the real question. Should people who cannot afford children continue to have them, or

should they get their act together responsibly before starting a family?

[CreekDog]

157. what's more irresponsible, for the mom to have the child or the state to punish it?

[badtoworse]

158. See Post #106 & #136

[CreekDog]

160. i'm not following your trail, it's a yes or no question

and if you think it saves money to let a poor kid go without necessities, i have a prison budget to show you.

[badtoworse]

161. I've already posted my views about this. It's not my problem if you're too lazy to read them.

[csziggy]

171. So then why are Republicans blocking reproductive rights?

They don't want to pay for the services that will let women plan their families or contraceptives to allow implementation or abortions if the contraceptives fail or if the women are raped.

It's not "a lack of personal responsibility" if you don't have access to the tools to control your reproductive choices!

Republicans and anti-women nut jobs would rather punish the women and their children when the women can't make their own choices - or if the woman decide to have children. I thought these idiots WANT all the children possible to be born - why do they punish poor women for following their dictates?

And why are you blaming women who are put in impossible situations?

[badtoworse]

172. I'm not blaming anyone. My point goes to California's policy being reasonable.

I've expanded in Posts #106 and #136.

[Vietnameravet]

3. Sorry but this is the kind of thing that discredits our side..

Republicans and conservatives have long charged our policies encourage irresponsible behavior and this is a perfect example.

If someone cannot afford children it is not the responsibility of others to pay for them..Plenty of people have practiced responsible family planning and people in California can do the same.

This just gives fuel to those that charge we are the party of the irresponsible..

And that stupid sign doesnt help!

[kcr]

11. Of course.

What doesn't? Hmmm. Let me see. Let's punish babies so we aren't discredited in the eyes of conservatives, so the cconservatives don't win and punish babies. That makes total sense.

Just what tenets pass conservative muster that are okay for our side to promote?

[Vietnameravet]

184. did you read the sign? She thinks that its her right to have

more kids and others pay for them..

[kcr]

188. What sign says that? I must have missed it n/t

[BuelahWitch]

5. It is not penalizing poor women for "wanting to be parents"

These women are already parents. CA does not want to foot the bill for women who have children they can't support.

[KittyWampus]

6. I'd like to think that sign was photoshopped into the Senators hands.

[Coventina]

12. Because "Motherhood" is only saintly when the rich and privileged enact it.

My Goddess! I can't believe some of the attitudes on this thread!!!


Remember the brouhaha when a journalist said that Ann Romney never worked a day in her life?

Oh! But motherhood is a NOBLE profession! Ann Romney with her parcel of kids is CLEARLY a working mother/grandmother!!!
How DARE anyone question her work ethic, when she has such a beautiful family to show for it?

Good thing her husband is rich, because those same children would be derided as proof of her irresponsibility, ignorance, selfishness, lack of education, laziness, etc., etc., ad infinitem, ad nauseum, if she were POOR!

Apparently, even on a liberal board, many have the attitude that only those with a certain level of financial means should be honored for reproducing.

Full disclosure: I'm infertile, unable to have children, so I am not defending motherhood from a personal standpoint.

I AM PRO-CHOICE!

[laundry_queen]

32. It's unreal, on a democratic website, isn't it?

DU has changed drastically in the last few years, that's for sure. It's interesting looking at the profiles of those with the rw talking points.

[leftstreet]

45. +1

[AverageJoe90]

83. I'm pro choice too, but nobody's arguing that.....

Because "Motherhood" is only saintly when the rich and privileged enact it.

, as the title claims.

I hate to say this, but this kinda does come off as dishonest, even if it wasn't the intention.....

[Coventina]

85. It is never my intention to be dishonest.

I am not sure what you are reading as dishonest, but if you point it out to me I'll be happy to clarify.

Thanks!

[AverageJoe90]

176. It's right there. "Because "Motherhood" is only saintly when the rich and privileged enact it".

Honestly, who in the hell has actually argued this on here? I haven't seen that at all here.

[Coventina]

177. It's all over this thread, and has been from the very beginning.

I didn't directly quote any specific poster, but the attitude of, "Motherhood should only be undertaken by those that meet a certain economic standard" is all over the place on this thread.

Those who do become mothers that don't meet whatever this standard is, are seen as being lazy, selfish, ignorant, etc. etc.

If I had unlimited free time on my hands, I'd give you a post-by-post accounting, but I don't.

[AverageJoe90]

178. "It's all over this thread, and has been from the very beginning." I'm not so convinced of that.

I didn't directly quote any specific poster, but the attitude of, "Motherhood should only be undertaken by those that meet a certain economic standard" is all over the place on this thread.

Those who do become mothers that don't meet whatever this standard is, are seen as being lazy, selfish, ignorant, etc. etc.

But where's the posts that actually imply that only the rich and privileged deserve motherhood? When you do have time, please do show me the posts that you think are implying such. Otherwise, I'd suggest you stop jumping to such radical conclusions.....

[Coventina]

181. OK - here's a start:

Posts 2, 3, & 5 all discuss having children that parents "can't afford."

Who makes that decision? Who decides how much it costs to have a child and at what income bracket should adults be allowed to have offspring?

Maybe the problem isn't the children?

Maybe its the ludicrously low minimum wage we have. Or lack of benefits, or affordable childcare options...I could go on and on.

Are poor people supposed to wait around until all these social problems are fixed before becoming parents?

Are they really supposed to be denied the family they want because they don't meet some magical criteria set by affluent citizens?

My "radical" post was pointing out conservative, affluent hypocrisy that considers "Motherhood" to be a noble profession, but only for mothers who are completely underwritten by either their families or their own additional labor.

Apparently, it's beyond the pale that as a society we would value "Motherhood" enough to collectively support poor mothers to stay home and care for their children.

[AverageJoe90]

182. Still not convinced. None of these argue the exact thing you claimed.

Posts 2, 3, & 5 all discuss having children that parents "can't afford."

Doesn't mean anyone implied that only rich & privileged people are entitled to children on here, though.

Who makes that decision? Who decides how much it costs to have a child and at what income bracket should adults be allowed to have offspring?

Nobody really does. It's all about how much it costs to feed and otherwise nourish said child.

Maybe its the ludicrously low minimum wage we have. Or lack of benefits, or affordable childcare options...I could go on and on.

That I actually agree with, by the way.

Are poor people supposed to wait around until all these social problems are fixed before becoming parents?

Becoming parents, period? That's not so much a problem. To be honest, though, it's probably not a good idea to have five or six kids while you've living in a trailer park in West Texas while working the night shift at McDonald's with only limited welfare. So I would in fact, advise against a large family under such conditions. (One could probably manage to get by with one or two, though).

Are they really supposed to be denied the family they want because they don't meet some magical criteria set by affluent citizens?

These criteria aren't set forth by "affluent citizens", though. They are real-world criteria suggested by pediatricians, social workers, etc., based on actual costs for food, etc., not just some half-assed dictates by rich white guys sitting in an office in Oak Lawn, Illinois or exclusive country-club neighborhood in Augusta, Ga., pulling random stats out of their asses just because they feel like screwing with People of Color, or whatever.

[Coventina]

183. Please provide links for these criteria suggested by pediatricians and social workers

where are they available for people to read and make decisions about their fertility window?

As someone who grew up in extreme poverty and spent most of my young adulthood very poor, I wish I would have been given one of these pamphlets/ websites/ etc.

I'm past my child-bearing years now, but I'll be sure to pass these links on to other members of my family and social network who might need them.

And yes, anytime somebody says the phrase, "Having a child they cannot afford" they are saying a certain threshold of wealth has to be passed in order to be "worthy" of having that child.

[AverageJoe90]

185. It was more of a general thing(maybe it wasn't worded all that well, and I apologize).

My point was, this truly isn't something that random rich country club type white guys make up and pull out of their asses. This is based on real world data. Unfortunately, I don't know of any super-detailed sources off hand, but I do have a couple of basic sources:

money.cnn.com/2013/08/14/pf/cost-children/
www.parenting.com/article/the-cost-of-raising-a-baby
http://www.extension.umn.edu/family/personal-finance/spending-and-saving/cost-of-raising-children/

You can also use a couple of calculators, if you'd like:

http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/calculatorintro.htm
http://www.babycenter.com/cost-of-raising-child-calculator

As someone who grew up in extreme poverty and spent most of my young adulthood very poor, I wish I would have been given one of these pamphlets/ websites/ etc.

I'm past my child-bearing years now, but I'll be sure to pass these links on to other members of my family and social network who might need them.

I'm sorry to hear that, btw(I really do mean that, sincerely). If any of these links help somebody, then it'd be worth it.

And yes, anytime somebody says the phrase, "Having a child they cannot afford" they are saying a certain threshold of wealth has to be passed in order to be "worthy" of having that child.

TBH, I'm sure that many conservatives really do think that. But what we on the left are thinking of is not status, but rather, the welfare of the children, and that of the parents as well. And as I may have said before, I wholeheartedly support extending & strengthening welfare benefits and raising the minimum wage; it'd really help a lot of people.

[Coventina]

209. Thank you for your thoughtful response.

My upbringing was very hard at times, but I've never regretted for a second that my younger sister and brother existed.
They are and remain my best friends and all the adversity we went through helped forge the bonds we have now.
I simply could not imagine life without them, even though my parents most definitely couldn't "afford" them.

So, it really irks me when privileged people so carelessly say that it's babies that are the problem.
No, the problem is we live in a system that doesn't value PEOPLE.

[gollygee]

14. Lots of Republican talking points in this thread

Sigh.

No one is having a baby for $120 a month, but once a baby exists it is a citizen who has expenses. This is just about penalizing children for daring to be born to poor people.

[AverageJoe90]

82. "Lots of Republican talking points in this thread". Really?

I saw maybe one or two comments that could be legitimately thought of as such.....but other than that, it seems that you're imagining things, mon ami.

[CreekDog]

170. nope, not imagining things

the imagining comes in when you think that the right wing talking points here are the truth and the liberal posts debunking them are wrong.

[AverageJoe90]

175. I'm guessing you get a real kick out of stalking people, don't you?

[DanTex]

210. Lots of Republicans in this thread, I suspect.

[GeorgeGist]

17. This is dumb ...

[blueamy66]

52. It's just crass.

And unnecessary.

[NaturalHigh]

71. Yeah, she's looking to attract the wrong kind of attention.

One would hope that a state senator might try to show a little more class.

If a male politician had displayed a sign with the word "poontang," he would be ripped to shreds on this site.

[NV Whino]

19. Why not take that money and provide

A little education with a side of condoms.

[BuelahWitch]

27. Exactly!

[NaturalHigh]

73. I'm all for free birth control for everybody.

[Throd]

22. I chose not to have any children until I could provide for them.

[bettyellen]

92. You really think people born in the ghetto need to leave it before they can reproduce? WOW.

I never knew poor peoples' lives were automatically deemed "shitty" and not worth having by DUers, but a few here are actually saying this. You seem to be sharing a similar sentiment.

[Throd]

96. Purposely having children you cannot afford to provide for is an irresponsible action.

[bettyellen]

97. So poor people should not reproduce in your judgement- got it.

[Throd]

100. You know that is not what I am saying. I'm familiar with your act.

[bettyellen]

102. It's not an act LOL. You judge the poor as irresponsible for having babies- ergo you feel a better

decision for them, would be to forgo parenthood entirely- unless they meet some arbitrary high enough economic standard at some point. Even if they are not as poor as the famliy they themselves happily grew up in, you think they are unwise to reproduce.
That is exactly what you are saying.

[Throd]

103. I'm speaking as someone who WAS poor. Having a child at that time would have been a bad decision.

[bettyellen]

128. So if they haven't "pulled themselves up" - they should not have kids.

I don't care about your own history.
It's RW claptrap.

[Red State Rebel]

134. I agree with you - children aren't a right, they are a privilege.

You need to be prepared financially and emotionally for parenthood.

[etherealtruth]

95. .... and I am sure that no misfortune or tragedy could ever take away your ability to provide

You are so LUCKY that nothing could ever change your life circumstance ... except we all know that is not true or possible

[Throd]

98. If my circumstances change for the worse, I sure won't elect to have any more children.

[etherealtruth]

101. You are a shining example for the great unwashed masses

Hoping no misfortune or tragedy ever puts you in a position where you can't adequately provide for your children ... and should it happen, hoping you do not encounter folk like yourself.

Your children deserve better than that.

[Throd]

104. I'm not talking about children already born.

If people fall on hard times and require public assistance for themselves and their children, they should be able to receive it.

[etherealtruth]

105. How is that consistent?

The "burden" on the "system" would be the same? The only difference would be exerting some control over those less fortunate (read the poor).

[Throd]

109. see post #106

[etherealtruth]

120. Doesn't explain consistency

Paying for four children for four years (born prior to the application for assistance) = Paying for four children for four years (born while on assistance). If the argument is fiscal there is no difference.

“Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well- warmed, and well-fed.”
― Herman Melville

[badtoworse]

137. See Post #136

[etherealtruth]

145. No, I would rather not

If you are not inclined to give a meaningful or cogent response , I am not interested.

[badtoworse]

147. What an erudite response.

[Vietnameravet]

202. this is not about misfortune

its about someone demanding others pay for her choices and irresponsible behavior,,the perfect example of the thing righties accuse us of doing,,,and vulgar at that,, perfect fodder for Fox news,,

[B2G]

26. So how do you feel about Nadya Suleman's choices?

Look how that turned out.

[BuelahWitch]

29. I feel so sorry for those kids n/t

[laundry_queen]

30. That woman probably needed

some really good mental health treatment that her reproductive doctor should've given her or recommended for her right before he refused to implant 8 embryos. The system failed her.

[Coventina]

42. Agreed! As someone who has been through the IVF process I can tell you or anyone

that the doctor involved should have his license revoked.

What he did was completely unethical by any measure of medical ethics.

In my preparation for IVF, there were long discussions prior to ANY treatment, about how the process would go.

The doctors I worked with advised me up front that they would NEVER transfer more than one embryo at a time - due to my pre-existing conditions, and that even if I had NO issues, that never more than TWO embryos are transferred for any patient.

I don't fault the woman for choosing to carry, after the doctor put her in that position. I would find it difficult to "down select" as it's called.
And, she CLEARLY has mental issues that would have caused any ethical doctor to refuse IVF.

In any case, I fail to see why one woman's poor choices and one doctor's malpractice should determine the choices of other women.

Like you, much of this thread makes me want to

[ForgoTheConsequence]

36. Hey look, a thread full of poor shaming and right wing talking points.

Sure you folks don't want to bring up welfare queens like Reagan or lazy inner city men like Paul Ryan while you're at it?

[leftyohiolib]

77. rght wingers would have no , none ,nada, zilcho, zero, dollars going to anyone

all some of us are saying is that if you on public assistance,and remember that assistance is not infinite and other people need them too, that maybe you ought to slow down on the babies till you can support yourself that. that is not a r-w "talking point" it's helping people to not take advantage of assistance that others will need access to.

[etherealtruth]

99. It sure reads that way

Many of the comments would fit in well at any right wing gathering. be heartened though ... the comments (idiotic as they are) are coming from a comparatively small number that feel compelled to repeat their idiocy over and over (in their multiple responses)

[LittleBlue]

37. No one is penalizing them

California has this thing called a budget. Unlike the feds, they can't print more money when times get tough. I believe this last year was the first time in 10 years they didn't have a deficit.

I'm sorry, personal responsibility has to come into play here. They have the means to avoid having kids they can't afford. California faces water shortages, the land itself can't afford any more people.

[The Straight Story]

38. I think the key to the issue people are having with this is in the title

"for Wanting to Be Parents?"

Now in the title there is no mention of parents, just the mother. So now, again going on the title, you have what appears to be a women sitting around to her self thinking 'hey, I know my life is in dire straits right now and having a hard time feeding/clothing my kid - but maybe I will head out later and get pregnant again. Oh, but wait, I am in CA and I won't get any more assistance so it will be a little harder. Why am I being punished?'

It might have been a better article title like "Poor women given less options in unwanted pregnancies may generate a rise in more abortions" - which is not only closer to the truth but also adds more justification for planned parenthood funding and such.

Just my 2 cents based on what I am seeing here.

[seveneyes]

61. First off, birth control should be provided for those who can't afford it

Second, that sign does not help matters.

[DebJ]

63. Perhaps a compromise would be to change it so that

the cap was after 'x' number of children? I know this isn't a typical case; I don't believe in welfare queens. But we DO have a person in our city who is a crack addict and who is still giving birth in her mid-40s, child number 8 now, and who SAYS she has a baby ever few years to get the support money and stay on welfare. CRACK babies. I don't know how those things work; my son requires social supports because he has bipolar and the system is extremely complicated and patchwork. I guess this is another case of drug abuse needing to be treated as an illness instead of a crime? But then, she'd have to WANT to get clean.........

Also, while substitute teaching at the local high school, I heard a girl in 10th-11th grade saying to her friend that
she was going to get pregnant again this year because that would be the best time to maximize her benefits.

One of my biggest peeves with the system is that couples who do have children out of wedlock and who are on
poverty-level minimum wage ... yes working, to the best of their abilities ... CAN'T get married or they'd starve
because the benefits get cut in half.

[PotatoChip]

88. Out of the 8 children the woman has,

how many did she have after going on assistance? The woman in your first paragraph, I mean...

[DebJ]

93. Most of them from what I was told. She lives in the neighborhood of a friend

I used to work with. She spaced them out so as to always have a few around.

[PotatoChip]

122. 8 children while on welfare (aka TANF) would be impossible due to time limits.

Are There Limits to How Long I Can Receive TANF Benefits?:

Yes. In most cases, you can only receive TANF benefits for a maximum of 5 years (or 60 months).
http://singleparents.about.com/od/financialhelp/p/TANF.htm

To have had all, or even most of the 8 kids, getting pregnant "every few years" in a 5 year space of time, would be impossible. Unless she had given birth to twins, triplets, quads, or quints... Btw, the 5 year time limit cited above is a federal maximum, w/a lifetime cap. Some states may opt to give TANF recipients less time than that.

63. Perhaps a compromise would be to change it so that

the cap was after 'x' number of children? I know this isn't a typical case; I don't believe in welfare queens. But we DO have a person in our city who is a crack addict and who is still giving birth in her mid-40s, child number 8 now, and who SAYS she has a baby ever few years to get the support money and stay on welfare. CRACK babies. I don't know how those things work; my son requires social supports because he has bipolar and the system is extremely complicated and patchwork. I guess this is another case of drug abuse needing to be treated as an illness instead of a crime? But then, she'd have to WANT to get clean.........

Additionally, it is important to note that she would have to be working to receive benefits, making this "crack addicted" woman a very busy one indeed. If she can do all of that in 5 years, she deserves a medal, not anyone's scorn. Also, help for her addiction would probably be a good idea.

What Are the Requirements of Parents Receiving TANF?:

As a single parent receiving TANF, you would be required to participate in qualified "work activities" for at least 30 hours per week. In most cases, you would be expected to obtain employment immediately upon receiving assistance, and recipients must be employed within two years.
http://singleparents.about.com/od/financialhelp/p/TANF.htm

You say that you don't think that this is a typical case, and that you don't believe in welfare queens. For someone who feels that way, you certainly seem vested in perpetuating the myths and legends about them.

[DebJ]

125. Thanks for the information, first of all.........

This is generally what I have been telling people that I thought was how the Federal Program is SUPPOSED
to work. However, it is actually administered by the state. If the state doesn't follow up, then what? I told
my friend (and everyone who suspects abuse of a system) that they should report it, and if they didn't report
it, then THEY are the problem.

It does say this at your link:

Are There Exceptions to the Work Rule for Single Parents?:
If you have children under 6 and you are unable to find adequate child care, the state cannot penalize you for not meeting the work requirement.

Therefore, having another baby every few years insures there are children under 6 in the home.

It also says in MOST cases benefits are limited to 60 months. From my son's experience with social support systems, there are a lot of 'if, ands or buts', and also a lot of people working in social services who have insufficient knowledge of how programs work/what the rules are (my son has spent a lot of time educating them....just last week, by pointing to a poster over their heads at their desk that said the contrary of what they had just said.... I'm not knocking the dedicated people that work in social services for peanuts pay, they get insufficient support and not enough pay to stay long enough to learn how to navigate the mess social services is).

If I had time I'd look for a government link instead of About.com, but currently we are in the midst of a huge family problem with my aged parents including a major interstate move, sale of a home, and pending death of my Mom, and I'm mostly running back and forth between 3 different states half of each week for months now. Otherwise I look stuff up myself.

I called one of my reps in Congress to ask them if there was a federal limit on the number of children for whom additional funds would be paid, but that was last year during the shut down, and for the first time in my life, no one got back to me on a call to a Congress person. And I've been too busy to follow up.

DU should be, I think most would agree, a place where people can post their understandings of issues or ask questions and get excellent and linked responses, such as just happened with you sending me the link. That's why I've been here for most of the last 10.5 years.

So while I really do appreciate your link to information, I really don't understand your need for the comment at the end. What was your purpose in making this comment? What goal did you hope to achieve, and why? These types of comments make me sad. There is much, much less activity on DU then I used to see here, and it is this type of comment that will drive people away.

Posting the information I have been given by others and citing it as such isn't evidence that I am 'invested in' perpetuating myths. If I was a troll of some type I wouldn't have been invited by Dem HQ here to introduce Ted Kennedy when he was here for Obama's primary run. If everyone had the same information on every issue and the same opinion, there wouldn't be much need for discussion.

Again, your link is appreciated, and that's the type of back-and-forth information that has made DU a great source of information and help and unity over my decade here. THAT'S what this place is for.

[PotatoChip]

138. Yes. It is a federal program administered by the state.

I never said anything to the contrary. That changes nothing other than the fact that the state may limit the time a person can be on TANF to even less than 5 years. They cannot go over 5 years however, due to the federal guidelines. This is why the wording I presented from the link uses the term- "in most cases".

It is 5 years or less. Never more.


Now, in regard to this statement in your post, you failed to use the entire portion of the linked section, so I will do it for you. I've bolded the part you left out:

It does say this at your link:

Are There Exceptions to the Work Rule for Single Parents?:
If you have children under 6 and you are unable to find adequate child care, the state cannot penalize you for not meeting the work requirement. In addition, those with children under 6 are only required to complete a total of 20 hours of work activities per week.

That section regarding exceptions is about the penalties one will receive for not working the full 20 hours (for a parent w/a child under 6) or the full 30 hours (for a parent w/a child older than 6). In order to not be penalized, the parent will have to prove that they were unable to find adequate childcare. For a parent w/a child older than 6 there are no exceptions allowed to their 30 hour work requirement.

[DebJ]

141. It's not difficult here to be in a situation where adequate child care can't be found.

We have some, but the number of openings are limited and there are waiting lists. I used to be on one of those lists (a long time ago). You can get bumped up on the list if you violate the law and go to work and leave your children without the legally-required supervision.

In this country, children are the last thing we take care of.

Since the link is to an About.com site, perhaps it isn't expressed clearly there to adequately explain the law, but this doesn't say that you can only get less, not more than, 60 months. it only speaks of maximums.

Are There Limits to How Long I Can Receive TANF Benefits?:
Yes. In most cases, you can only receive TANF benefits for a maximum of 5 years (or 60 months).

I guess the puzzling thing, if you are right and you may well be, is why then would this woman be running around telling people that this is why she has the babies? It's not a matter of people presuming that, it is a matter of it is her own perception that this is what has helped to get her by. Same with the high school students, who openly say this to their friends and then yes indeed, show up with swelled bellies (when they already have one child in the nursery in the high school). That is THEIR understanding, not mine. I don't see the assistance they receive; I only know of their comprehension of that system. But as I learned from my son, social services is a complicated patchwork of many different agencies and charities doing their best to serve the public. It's not just one program.

Anyway, my point was just that the system isn't serving the needs of these people or the public as it currently stands. (Big surprise there) and I wish we could change it.

[PotatoChip]

148. That was the first link I came to when googling.

There are plenty of others that will bear out what I am saying. I know, because I've done this line of work. The time limits and work requirements were part of Clinton's 1996 welfare reform act.

I don't have time to respond, or even read your full post, but I will try to get to it this afternoon w/better links.

[DebJ]

156. thanks!

I'm going out of town again until Sunday just to turn around and leave Monday so I might not see it for awhile anyway.
My 24 hours at home I have to prepare 18 meals for my husband for his special diet, do laundry and rent a car and
other stuff don't even know how i'm going to manage that. Oh yes, and file a tax extension request.

[Hippo_Tron]

113. Just a thought, maybe we need a welfare system for able bodied adults?

Who simply cannot find work or are unable to work, or because they have addiction problems, or any number of other reasons? They have it in the UK, it's called being "on the dole". Over there they don't treat it like it's the end of the fucking world that someone "undeserving" may be collecting a welfare check.

[DebJ]

115. That would certainly be more cost efficient than paying for a crack baby as well.

But would not that also be enabling in some fashion? There would need to be something
else to this I think.

[Hippo_Tron]

116. Again look at the UK, does everyone just sit on their ass and collects a check there?

If they do, then someone's going to have to explain to me how they have the 6th largest GDP in the world.

The fact is that the vast majority of people want to work, not only because they have a better standard of living than being on the dole but also because it's fulfilling. There are certainly a few people who for whatever reason would rather just collect a welfare check when they could be working. But by cutting those people off of assistance you inevitably cut off those who do need it AND you create perverse incentives like having babies to get a welfare check.

The rational solution is to accept that the inevitable cost of a compassionate society, is having some people for whom the dole is a way of life. It's really not the worst thing in the world. We just treat it like it is here in the US.

[DebJ]

117. I'm fine with the dole part. It's the crack part that bothers me. n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

118. The woman you describe really needs the help of a social worker...

And treatment for addiction. More things that we'd pay for if we had our priorities right.

[Recursion]

119. What's a "CRACK baby"?

I remember a moral panic about "crack babies" that wound up having absolutely no medical basis; cocaine isn't actually very harmful to fetuses. (The problem was women using crack were generally often also smoking and drinking, which are both harmful to fetuses...)

[DebJ]

126. That's interesting. I never saw that revision and I've been a newshound for some years now.

But even if the woman doesn't smoke or drink, how many people with crack addiction take adequate prenatal care
of themselves? Nutrition? Sleep? Safe sex? How well does a crack addict attend to the needs of a baby?

I honestly don't know. I only know what the media has presented about crack addicts. Pretty ugly. (On edit: I've seen the impact of drug use in families, as I mention below, but which drugs were in use, I didn't often know.)

And for a year I was teaching children who lived in homes where all types of drug abuse was very prevalent. Very tragic and sad, the impact on those children, even if they were otherwise healthy (barring the fact that many only ate if there was free lunch/breakfast, no food over the holidays, skinny as rails, no winter coats, etc.)

A DEA agent spoke in our school one day and a young girl, whose father we all knew was a drug dealer, raised her hand and asked what would the DEA do to a child in a home if the parent was arrested for dealing drugs. Made me cry. Apparently another element in their world of hell is thinking some day their home would be invaded, they themselves might be arrested, and all their toys taken as well. Not that this was the worst of her fears as she had also been sexually assaulted at an incredibly young age by some piece of drug infested filth, whom I think was a relative. She's in a special school now because her anger issues make her very dangerous. I could always see underneath her though the simple little child just wanting to be a 'normal' child in a safe environment... but it was way too late for that for her. Still makes me cry. She refused to do any school work at all, though she was incredibly bright. She would curse at me and cause class disruptions all the time, but still I had to love her, for that lost little child, that tragically lost life......... because of drug using / selling parents. So very, very sad.

[bettyellen]

129. Cool crack baby story! It's raining money on shitty Moms, lol.

I feel like I should ask, are you also "on crack"?
You seem to know so much about this woman. Interesting.

[DebJ]

131. My goodness! I am so sorry.

I never intimated at all that I knew a lot; just that the situation had me curious because I knew my friend
was an honest and concerned person and knew this woman personally. The only other thing I know is that
my friend is distressed because of the condition she sees the three young children in all the time; it tears
her heart out for them.

I never said money is raining down on these people. For a year full-time and for several years part-time I worked
with students of families like this. How could I think money was 'raining down' when I was spending the week before
Christmas each year, in my own home, with my own money and resources, making up food packets for each of my 85 students to take home because I knew most of them wouldn't get lunch or breakfast over the holidays? When I was offering students jobs to mow my grass because I knew how desperately their families needed money? When I was visiting their homes and tutoring them for free? One of my students told me he was going to be a drug dealer when he grew up because drug dealers are filthy rich. I asked him where a drug dealer he knew lived; he told me. I said is that a nice place? He said no, not really. I said how much money does he have? He said the dealer always has $25 or more. That's the viewpoint of these kids (age 13). That's what some of them aspire to; that is there concept of the pinnacle of achievement. They know of nothing else. I became a teacher to try to change that perspective. (Then 50% of the teaching jobs were cut in our local school... actually, just over 50%).

I'd like to find more out about how the system works and how to best protect the woman (who needs drug rehab services) and the children, above all, the children. This is not going to be accomplished by a series of snarky comments that are directed at some one who cares about long-term resolutions to the issues of the poor.

I really have enjoyed DU over the years as a good place for information, links, and understanding.

Your reply is informative, but not about the situation of which I spoke. Does speak volumes, though! And so, I am very sorry. Hope things go better for you the rest of the day, or the rest of your life, or whatever it is that makes you clearly discomfitted.

[bettyellen]

133. Such useful "stories" you pass on, smearing the poor by likening them to addicts!

Sorry? You should be, this fear mongering nonsense is worthy of Limbaugh. It gives people license to broad rush the poor and punish them for the sins of others.
I'm having a great day, but thanks for the insults.

[DebJ]

139. bettyellen, you don't know me at all, nor have you seen my Facebook page

where I am constantly trying to correct that same impression among several of my conservative cousins. I don't broadbrush the poor; I've actually been out there in the community trying to help them. I spoke of 'one' case, and in no way inferred that this was a standard example or what usually happens.

My own son is trapped in poverty and the social services system because he has bipolar disorder. It is horrible, horrible, horrible, depressing, tragic, crushing in spirit for me and for him. He can't work his way out of it because at just a minimum wage full-time job, he would lose all support benefits, and his meds alone are $800 a month. His only way out would be to somehow jump up and over and end up immediately with a sufficiently high-paying position.

There is no way in hell that I want social services to be cut or to end. That would literally mean my son's life would end.
There is a need for redirection however, and for education.

I'm not fear-mongering. I am not saying this is the typical case, or the always case, just that this is ONE case, and there should be a better way to handle it. It may very well be a case of the local authorities not implementing a law as they should be (and that's why I tell people to report suspected cases. Both to resolve those cases, but more likely, for those who are suspicious to maybe find out that things aren't what they perceive them to be.)

Also, I am repeating what I have actually heard said by local high school students. THEY perceive some advantage to themselves; that is what they said; that is the actions they are deliberately choosing, as evidenced by what they said.
What they need is a different vision of life; a different concept of opportunity. I did my best with the opportunities presented to me to help them. I might have reached ONE child who now wants passionately to pursue the career that a volunteer presented in my classroom. But that's only ONE. It is not helpful to just say 'poor babies' and not try to do something to actually change the situation for them. It crushes a teacher to see children with so much potential, many incredibly intelligent, and to see that their goal in life is to have a baby before high school. Our drop out rate, the REAL one, the one the community knows well not the numbers published, is well over 60%. Over half of the students in 9th grade will smile and periodically say to their friends "I only have 'x' days left before I can quit school. How many days do you have?" Because bettyellen you clearly haven't heard and seen these things, and worked to do whatever you could with each of these many children to give them a better perspective, and seen how very hard that is to do, you choose to slam me. Ok, make your own day. I'll keep trying to help make someone else's life better, rather than making snarky comments.

Ha ha! I just got a phone call. My husband (now retired) is substitute teaching some of my former students and two of them wanted to talk to me. That was fun. Both of them have self-corrected quite a bit from their habits of 7th grade. Christian was thrilled to hear I was in the bleachers rooting for him as he played on the basketball team and Amari was pleasantly surprised I remembered her. I remember every one of those little faces and their stories and I will until dementia takes over.

[bettyellen]

150. I'm sure you are doing wonderful work, but repeating RW memes is an odd way of supporting the poor..

kind of an odd wrench to through in the discussion. Not sure if you realized you were pretty much parroting RW scare mongerer's bullshit. Now, you know. Keep up the good work.

[DebJ]

155. I was citing a particular case, not repeating an everyone is like this so we should kill it theme.

[bettyellen]

159. I think it was the "crack baby" comment tossed out, that made it sound so weird and RW.

I believe that you did not mean to offend, but it does mirror where they take the conversation about the poor to immediately criminalizing them. And stuff like that unfairly influences peoples' level of compassion.
All this is OT as we were talking about the poor, not drug addicted, moms.

[DebJ]

204. Ok. I understand that. Don't know what a better term would be though. n/t

[Shrike47]

68. I think a lot of people have mixed feelings.

I've had 2 friends, both liberals, who expressed resentment that poor women receiving state assistance were having a baby while they themselves were putting off having one due to the expense. It's not that they didn't want the poor woman to be able to make that choice, it was more a matter of resenting their own sense of responsibility and the feeling that they were paying for another woman to have what they wanted.

Life is so damned complicated.

[Xithras]

69. California has a 4 year lifetime limit on welfare.

The notion that women are having babies to become "welfare queens" is idiotic. After four years, the mother loses ALL of her welfare benefits, and she will never be able to apply for them again. She'll still get $125 a month per child, but any parent knows that you can't raise a kid on $125 a month. There are no "welfare lifers" in this state, and there is zero reason to deny this benefit to children.

California does make birth control free for the poor, and I do believe that families on assistance should be encouraged to use it*, but no child should be punished simply for being born poor.


*I believe they should use it simply because newborn babies make it harder to work, and with California's four year limit it's important to use your time wisely to take advantage of the educational and job training opportunities that CalWorks offers. Having a baby while on CalWorks increases the chances that you'll still be unemployed when your benefits run out...a nightmare scenario for many poor families.

[AverageJoe90]

84. "but no child should be punished simply for being born poor." I think that most people here on DU.

would be in total agreement with you on that. I know I do.

[MO_Moderate]

70. Nobody is being penalized for anything

People are still free to have as many kids as they want.

[Vashta Nerada]

74. I don't see this as a bad thing.

People shouldn't be having kids if they can't afford to support them.

[jwirr]

81. What do they do about families who have children and THEN become poor or when there is a

divorce/death of one partner and the family ends up in poverty. This is the most common reasons for family poverty. How does this law effect this situation?

[DebJ]

135. Not the most common cause where I live.

Our city is filled with multi-generational families in poverty; like 5-6 generations. Thousands and thousands, most of the city in fact. It is the system they know and understand.

When I taught the students for a few years, it became evident that they have no vision of any other options for themselves. It was really sad. I brought some people in to speak to them about life and career opportunities, and they loved it...but my stay at the school was brief, and the impression briefer still. Then normal life and perceptions go back to what they were. I grew up in a working class environment, with both parents working, in the 1950s 1960s where there was hope (at least for whites), and that was how I perceived life and my chances in it. These students live in another world, in a poverty bubble, and breaking that bubble will require a lot of time and effort and investment ... and some proof that they can indeed break out of it.

Minorities comprise more than 60% of the students in the schools, and the discrimination around here is hideous, ridiculous, and not very well hidden at all. Even the fast food chains are lily-white, except directly downtown in the city. Kind of creepy, really, since I came originally from Maryland where such discrimination isn't so appalling evident. Once I got a job here, I could see what was going on with job applicants and here stunning comments that came straight from the 1950s.

My honest assessment in our town, which has damn few job opportunities for anyone at all anyway, is that the best hope for these kids is to get out of this disgusting state and go somewhere where people are people, not colors. But until they can actually see a vision of a different life, that's not going to happen.

Yes, the recession hit here, too, and there are families that lost jobs. We did too. But it's not the most common thing here. This town was already so severely depressed there weren't that many more jobs to lose.

[jwirr]

140. I have seen this in neighborhoods impacted with high poverty also but the neighborhoods I saw

just happen to be on reservations and that all changed WHEN during the Clinton administration they got the right to set up casinos. Other reservations have sold their coal. They have jobs and those who were not entrapped in drug or alcohol addiction have broken the cycle. It is interesting how well they have used the opportunity. They have used the profits from the casino to start other business which include companies selling LP heating/cooking gas; a gas station with a grocery store connected; construction companies that both build and repair property and others types of jobs.

What I am saying is that it is jobs they need in a community like that and nothing else will ever help them. Even on reservations not all reservations have been able to dig themselves out of the mess mainly because of location. The children actually do see things as they are. If there are no jobs then there is little hope and it effects everything about their lives.

[DebJ]

142. Thanks for the positive note!

And yes the lack of jobs does impact everything. All the more so because of the social perception that not working means you are lazy and don't want to work. Even friends do that to friends they have known for decades. Disgusting.

[Scout]

87. i don't care if you can afford it or not....

i don't think ANYONE should be having children until the orphanages and foster homes are empty, and all the born children have homes and families that love and care for them.

[rumdude]

90. California is so dysfunctional and messed up that to even

ask why anything happens there is quite often a completely futile endeavor.

[2naSalit]

107. I lived in California back when

this set of conditions to the regulations for receiving welfare were being discussed. I recall that back then I knew of several women who depended on having children at regular intervals to increase their benefits or having a child to get on them. These women ranged in age from 16 to somewhere in their thirties. I knew one who had five children with the same father who actually lived with her, unmarried, and she had a photography business that she didn't claim. She grew up on welfare and she had some six kids while on welfare before she was stopped by this ruling.

Another had grown kids and she got pregnant in her thirties, she claim on purpose, because she couldn't find a job or affordable housing.

Another was not enjoying high school and claimed that she wanted to get pregnant so she could get a place of her own and get out of her parents' house.

Back before this ruling, there actually was a problem with women having children just to keep getting the funds (and I think that it was a larger award than there is now and even if not, the amount bought far more than it does today). Not saying it was good or bad but my family-my mom especially, who were paying taxes, were pretty upset that there was a rather large population of women doing this, it was widely known, not myth, not stereotyping and was not determined by race as I saw this among all colors and ages. In fact back then, if a poor person was not pregnant or a refugee or both, getting assistance was close to impossible... so the legislature (post Reagan) decided to implement some deterrents to stem this practice and make assistance available to others who weren't having numerous children to stay on benefits. And to be fair, pay parity was not a topic for discussion in the late 80s in Calif.

That's what happened back then. Sure, times and economies change, the state should have been paying attention with regard to those circumstance but it is hard to encourage people to consider the consequences of their actions especially when it involves creating another person and attending subsequent responsibilities of creating that other person. Heh, just look at how hard it is to get people to start taking the environmental pressures seriously with regard to their own survival or even vote in their best interest... you can't even get them to recycle let alone pull their heads out of their iphones to pay attention.

So y'all can rave on about how incensed you are about how you perceive others may view this law in California but there was a reason it was put into place and it seems like people refuse to reflect on why it's there and how they could respond to the issues that made the law necessary in the eyes of a legislature.

FYI:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_cap

http://law.onecle.com/california/welfare/14131.05.html

[WillowTree]

110. I've gotta wonder why it's so horrible to suggest.......

.......that, if a woman is poor and already has a child or children that she cannot afford to support without assistance, it's irresponsible for her to have more children until and unless that situation changes. It just puts an additional strain on a system that is already not keeping up and, perhaps more importantly, will only make it considerably more difficult for her to ever improve her situation and that of the child/children she already has.

Where is it written that everyone, regardless of his or her circumstances, has a right to continue to have more children and make others help to support those kids?

And yes, I know hat names I'm likely to get called, but really, at some point people need to let go of what they want in favor of what's right if the two are at odds. I don't give people a pass on that just because they're poor.

[CFLDem]

114. Reaganite!!!!

Is what some of our wrongheaded compatriots would call you.

Progressives by definition support progress in every situation. Bringing more lives into poverty is not progress, so us progressives support universal education and healthcare access so all people are empowered to improve their situations.

Those that argue children should be brought up in poverty just because of 'choice' have much more in common with pro-lifers than progressives.

[TheKentuckian]

132. Reaganite seems dead on to me. Your solution to raising children in poverty is less resources for

those in poverty under the same "never feed a stray cat" brand of logic espoused by my Reagan worshiping grandfather way back in the day. Real "progressive".

[CFLDem]

153. Wrong

The Reaganite just callously shoos the stray cat away as an annoyance, while the progressive uses collective resources to empower the stray to fend for itself and find a new home.

The Reaganite only cares for themselves while the progressive cares for others.

Doesn't mean we help them dig a bigger hole. If you want help from society, then you have to care for society. Living within one's means is part of that contract.

[TheKentuckian]

190. "Send them and their chillin to the work farm. Make sure they don't have no more"

Nope, still sounds like him but with the addition of "progressive" here and there.

[CFLDem]

193. Work farm???

[exboyfil]

124. The $120/mo. figure is stated as the motivation

That number is actually larger. The $120/mo. figure is what the state can control. The incentive to have children is actually larger. For example you would get another approximately $150/mo. for the additional child (SNAP). Still $3,420/yr. is not a huge incentive. Throw in another approximately $80/mo. for WIC, LIHEAP, and TEFAP (something of a guess about the amount). You now have $4,380/yr.

I would like to see good unbiased studies regarding the motivations related to poverty and the decision to have children. I perceive, based only on anecdotal evidence, that having children represents the perceived best choice for many young mothers. This legislation targets the incremental change of having an additional child in part because that is the only thing the state really can control. They cannot control the initial entry into the system.

Working on the motivations for entry into the system would be a better place to start (that is the liberal solution). I think you want women to think their best option is to get an education and have a job that pays a living wage. ACA tries to address some of this problem (which is what makes the conservative's resistance to it ridiculous). Before ACA Medicaid is better insurance/health care option than what a low income worker could otherwise get. I would like to see a single payer plan, but it is what we have right now. The thing you want to do is avoid having steps in benefits that create a disincentive to make that next dollar. I think a higher minimum wage (along with a restructured trade and manufacturing policy) would also help this situation.

The same argument also applies to fathers. Making on the book employment at a living wage serves to reduce the need for welfare. Knowing that you good job prospects and are on the hook for providing for your children also serves as an incentive to practice responsible family planning. I may get flamed for this comment, but do individuals perceive that many men, once they reach the point that an additional child makes no difference in their financial status because they are unable (or unwilling if working off the books) to pay additional child support, have little regard for having the next child. Obviously the media darling from last year Orlando Shaw fits this description.
http://blackamericaweb.com/2013/07/29/orlando-shaw-reality-show/

Another approach in Utah is Bleeding the Beast
http://www.hlntv.com/article/2011/08/03/bleeding-beast-polygamist-sect-accused-abusing-welfare


I know of two examples in which the parent has made the claim that getting an ADHD designation will get the child also qualified for SSI (she already had two children under this designation and was moving towards a third at the time). The Social Security website does specify ADHD as one of the conditions leading to SSI. A report on SSI says the amount is $615/mo or approximately $7.4K/year. Caps exist for families, but I am having a difficult time figuring out that limitation. Qualifying for SSI appears difficult so I don't think it is being abused, but I do have the statements I heard from this one individual with two children already on it. If it is relatively easy to get SSI especially for medical conditions that require minimal intervention, then it would be a perverse incentive both to have children treated for ADHD who do not need this treatment (very bad) as well as working into the overall incentive to have a child. It could just be the mother I was talking to was incorrect in her assessment of the situation or lying.

[PotatoChip]

127. Purposefully having another child while on welfare (aka TANF) would be a horrible 'investment'.

Since there is a federal lifetime cap of 5 years (maximum- some states limit the time to less than that) the TANF recipient would get, at most, 4 years worth of those 'big bucks' you cite.

The parent would thereafter have, at minimum, 14 more years of supporting the child on his/her own.

Are There Limits to How Long I Can Receive TANF Benefits?:

Yes. In most cases, you can only receive TANF benefits for a maximum of 5 years (or 60 months).
http://singleparents.about.com/od/financialhelp/p/TANF.htm

[TheKentuckian]

130. Same old ass Ronald Reagan "welfare queen" mumbo jumbo.

If you really believe such squalor generating sums can possibly be seen as any kind of "best option" then the society has already melted completely down and the entire effort and the "concern" that drives it is really about keeping up appearances to avoid dealing with deep poverty and rotting institutions.

The "profit margins" here are some extremely thin gruel, some insufficient fucking food stamps are supposed to be an inducement? The new kid isn't going to eat? BIG MONEY HERE!
WIC really? Seriously talking those tens of dollars a month that must be spent on very specific items available for what 18 months?
TEFAP? Isn't that the commodities program and meals for the elderly? What a lure! Powdered milk to be had for the low cost of being pregnant for nine months and going through labor.

These weird as arguments were silly and logically inconsistent coming from right wingers for decades and have not improved a bit now that the supposed left is mouthing the same nonsense.
Actually worse since we already knuckled under for welfare deform and savaged the hell out of the shitty excuse for a safety net that we had but still making the same lame points that we know good and well is very limited in duration of eligibility with conditions.

If even after Bubba's deform we have Democrats wringing their fucking hands about less than minimal aid for these children then this party is way deader than disco and the Teabaggers are really allies that provide enough cover to allow the phony left to weasel to in line with St. Ronnie of Rayguns.

Would you pop out babies for a cool 5k (a bouncy 5k, all puffed up with block cheese and formula vouchers) for up to five years (after which you are on your own)? Fuck no!!! The notion is ridiculous and again, if true speaks of far bigger problems than the "abuse".

[exboyfil]

154. Best option is the conclusion of many social scientists

An article from a liberal website dedicated to reproductive freedom:

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/04/29/poverty-causes-teen-parenting-not-the-other-way-around/
Why Does Poverty Cause Teen Parenting?

Many researchers have attempted to explain why young women living in poverty are more likely to have children in their teens, and have concluded that growing up with few economic prospects can lead young women to choose teen parenting. Some have referred to this as a “cultural norm” or pointed to the “cycle of poverty.” Kearney and Levine attempt to put it in economic terms by operationalizing the notions of “marginalization” and “hopelessness.” They speculate that “[t]he combination of being poor and living in a more unequal (and less mobile) society contributes to a low perception of possible economic success, and hence leads to choices that favor short-term satisfaction—in this case the decision to have a baby while young and unmarried.”

Essentially, the researchers are suggesting that young women are making logical assessments of their future: “The intuition is that if girls perceive their chances at long-term economic success as being sufficiently low, even if they do ‘play by the rules,’ then early childbearing is more likely to be chosen.”

[TheKentuckian]

191. I think that supports my point, societal meltdown and such instances are untreated side effects.

The solution is not to starve their kids as an incentive but to provide some basic level of opportunities but rather than to fix the problems which takes effort and resources the answer is to punish these children for being born based on right wing ideology because any assessment of reality would seem to indicate the "logic" is not a winner. We got a third world that is a huge sample, we have history prior to any welfare system, we have other western countries less fixated on hacking and slashing their safety net and the argument is just the same right wing pig we all have known for decades with some phony "progressive" rhetorical lipstick.

[exboyfil]

192. Then we are in agreement

A quote from my original post.

"Working on the motivations for entry into the system would be a better place to start (that is the liberal solution)."

I mentioned ACA as a start. Also increased minimum wage, a restructured manufacturing and trade policy. As part of the trade policy I would consider additional taxes for the added revenue. I did not mention it, but I also advocate removing the Social Security cap and closing tax loopholes.

[Tikki]

152. California is not….How many children does one need to become a parent?

Tikki

[AverageJoe90]

180. True.

Of course, to be fair, I don't have anything against large families overall. My main concern, however is the well-being of the kids. Can one really afford to feed five kids on minimum wage in San Diego or Orange County, even if you're on benefits?

If anything at all, I believe there are solid arguments for reinforcing and strengthening the welfare system, not just in Cal. but the country as a whole.

[Cal Carpenter]

201. Massive props to everyone who had the patience to counter the right-wing bullshit on this thread

Good god, just when I think nothing on DU can surprise me anymore...

FFS.

[Vietnameravet]

203. On behalf of righties every, where Thanks Holly for helping the cause of making

democrats and liberals look like vulgar, arrogant, irresponsible moocher and discrediting the cause of those in real need..

[redgreenandblue]

205. Using an anti-government slogan when you are campaigning FOR government assistance...

... is not a sign of very great intelligence.

reminds me of:

[McCamy Taylor]

208. My apologies but when a friend complains that she needs another child

because one of them just turned of age and she has lost one of her checks, then you just sort of assume that she is having another child to get another check. I know all kinds of people. People who slip in grocery stores for a living. People who have babies for a living. People who buy cars with hot checks and sell them with cash for a living. It isn't much a living, but it is how some folks get by.