"Put me in charge" welfare rant

[KingDavid8]

Originally Posted by Mickey Blue

The right will have to decide which they hate more, abortion or the threat of single mothers, 'welfare queens' who have babies to collect the money and anchor babies combined!

True. Every time a woman on welfare gets knocked up, she's either going to have one more mouth to feed (for the taxpayer to feed, that is), or will get an abortion. It seems to me like the right should be jumping at the chance to get the "welfare queen" proper birth control. Even if it's out of the taxpayer's pocket, it either prevents an abortion, or saves the taxpayer thousands of dollars in the long run.

It does seem to me that the right (at least the more moderate ones) don't like the idea of the government forcing sterilization or birth control on anyone, but it seems like providing it for those who request it, even at taxpayer expense, is something they would want to get behind.

[Chloe]

You are making the mistake here of believing the rhetoric. In real life, "saving babies" and even saving taxpayer money takes a back seat to the importance of making sure poor people are miserable.

[diddy]

Originally Posted by Mickey Blue

You cannot both say "Our economy is dying! Obama is bad" and also say "Poor people should just get better jobs! They are lazy!".

Who says they can’t? It’s not like anybody calls these guys out on the facts to any significant degree. Yes, its contrarian, but when did that ever stop anybody. All they have to do is claim that, yes the economy is in the crapper, but thats due to all of the welfare queens and lazy folks who think that it’s easier to get a handout then getting a job. If they would only hoist themselves off their petards and get a job, the economy would start picking up. But they can’t expect any help here! We can’t promote anything that goes against absolute personal responsibility. Of course there can be exceptions for people who really need it, but since we are paying for their free money, they need to have egregious limits placed on them so they aren’t tempted to abuse the bare minimum. You give them an inch, they start demanding a yard. And remember this is all Obama’s fault that the economy is in the crapper - the buck stops at him!

That’s how *I* would spin it if I was a conservative who was all for “small government” and one that wanted to promote the idea of personal responsibility - the highlight being essentially a blame someone else who can’t defend themselves. Thats why they target the poor - they are an easy target that people are already highly opinionated with and they tend not to be vocal - representing them tends to be very limited IMO and you combine that with a topic that people don’t have a good grasp on and you can just spat out whatever nonsense you want as long as you get a visceral response (like outrage). It not like people are actually going to check these things - not when they can blame someone else.

[smittykins]

Originally Posted by KingDavid8

True. Every time a woman on welfare gets knocked up, she's either going to have one more mouth to feed (for the taxpayer to feed, that is), or will get an abortion. It seems to me like the right should be jumping at the chance to get the "welfare queen" proper birth control.

But..but that allows them to avoid the *natural consequences of their sin*! After all, you play with fire, you get burned...

(Not to mention their belief that adoption solves everything. "Let's stop killing these bables and start giving them to people who want them.")

[Bettie Page Turner]

Originally Posted by wanderwoman

Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal legations.

I asked for a tubal ligation when I was on Medicaid. I was told Medicaid would not pay for it until I was 25.

[diddy]

Originally Posted by smittykins

But..but that allows them to avoid the *natural consequences of their sin*! After all, you play with fire, you get burned...:roll eyes:

That’s what I was kinda going for - any screw ups a person made are their fault and they need to lie in it like any other mess. Thats the whole notion about personal responsibility that these guys like to promote. After all, this is America - the land of opportunity to those who worked for it

(Not to mention their belief that adoption solves everything. "Let's stop killing these bables and start giving them to people who want them.")

Not to mention that they conveniently ignore how hard it is in many instances to actually adopt and how long it can take. It just doesn’t match with reality in their minds. The fit is, we have issues with putting children in homes even with abortion available - getting rid of it isn’t going to make the problem get any better.

[Chloe]

Banning abortion, assuming it actually worked, would put about a million babies into the adoption market every year. Rough math: let's assume 100 million households in the US. Let's say (and this is generous ) one in 20 wants to adopt, say three children over 30 years. Where are the other babies going to go? Not to mention the older children already waiting for homes.

[Nonny Mouse]

Having more babies available for adoption might reduce wait times for potential adopters, up to a point. Problem being, of course, that the once the supply exceeds the demand the government's going to have to pay someone to care for the overflow.

[Chloe]

Yes, and the point where supply exceeds demand would likely come as early as year one.

[geminilee]

From what I understand, a lot of the wait time is because people are asking for particular types of babies. I don't have a cite offhand (I will look for one if you want) but it is much easier for a white infant to be adopted out than a minority infant.

[diddy]

Originally Posted by Chloe

Yes, and the point where supply exceeds demand would likely come as early as year one.

Given how many kinds are waiting for adoptions now, I wager that we already have a problem.

Originally Posted by geminilee

From what I understand, a lot of the wait time is because people are asking for particular types of babies. I don't have a cite offhand (I will look for one if you want) but it is much easier for a white infant to be adopted out than a minority infant.

I have no problem with that. Not to mention that people are very picky about other traits that they adopt - it has to be perfectly healthy, no long term problems. You also have to overcome the fact that many parents might not want to give up their children even when forced to do so. But you raise a valid point, adoptions are a slow process even under ideal situations.

[geminilee]

Originally Posted by diddy

Given how many kinds are waiting for adoptions now, I wager that we already have a problem.

I wasn't even considering the older kids in the system, from toddlers on up. Those kids have little chance of being adopted, and the chances get less the older they get. Skin color and health problems are still considerations in this group, making many children essentially unadoptable.

[Mickey Blue]

Yea but those are usually (if I recall..) older kids, I would assume newborns (barring medical issues) can get adopted fairly easily but I could be dead wrong on that.

That said, of course, odds are the supply will exceed the demand pretty fast, and any kids that happen to be born with major medical issues even faster.

[geminilee]

Here is a link that supports the fact that white infants are preferred. In fact, African American babies are offered at discount rates.

[dungeondragon18]

Originally Posted by Nonny Mouse

Having more babies available for adoption might reduce wait times for potential adopters, up to a point. Problem being, of course, that the once the supply exceeds the demand the government's going to have to pay someone to care for the overflow.

I got it! Have the people who are on welfare work for their living by being forced to take care of the "overflow" children!

Oh, wait....

[diddy]

I bet Newt already thought of that idea!

[Thera]

My 38-year-old (at the time) broke friend got pregnant and Medicaid paid for all of it. She wanted the baby, was desperate for the baby, had been married to an older man who'd had his kids and was done and was stringing her along with the baby issue and she finally had enough, divorced him, and got pregnant as fast as she could with the rebound guy she married (whom she's no longer with, as he's crazy and needs meds which he doesn't take).

[ULTRAGOTHA]

Originally Posted by Bettie Page Turner

I asked for a tubal ligation when I was on Medicaid. I was told Medicaid would not pay for it until I was 25.

Federal guidelines state you must be 21. What state were you in at the time?

[Lainie]

Originally Posted by ULTRAGOTHA

Federal guidelines state you must be 21. What state were you in at the time?

I wouldn't rule out the possibility that Betty was misinformed or outright lied to.

[Beachlife!]

Both are very possible. It is also possible the guidelines have changed in 20 years.