Blame Welfare, Not Babies
by Candice Watters on 02/13/2009 at 11:42 AM
Given recent conflict over the merits of the massive so-called stimulus bill -- especially provisions to include contraception -- it's more important than ever to make the case for babies. Even in an economic downturn. Of course, so is making the case for parents taking responsibility for those babies once they're born. Frank Pastore's commentary in Crosswalk gets it wrong. He writes:
But something is wrong, very wrong, when we’re growing so many citizens who don’t even try to pay their own way, who willfully choose to take limited resources away from deserving others, and who live in such a way that they just assume it’s someone else’s responsibility to take care of them.
Babies aren't the problem. Government programs that displace fathers and encourage promiscuity and irresponsibility are.
1. Cassandra said the following at 12:02 PM on Feb 13:
I read the article and I disagree that Frank is blaming the babies. People shouldn't have babies that they don't anticipate raising with their own money. I've heard many stories of women who have more children simply to receive more welfare. It is a phenomenon. Frank is pointing out a problem with our system, where having children out of wedlock is not only sanctioned but subsidized by our government.
I don't think that government should tell people how many children to have, and I recoil at the insinuation that having a "large" family is socially or ecologically irresponsible. But Frank is using Ms. Suleman as an extreme example of a phenomenon in our culture where people are being rewarded for irresponsible behaviour with public funds.
2. Megan said the following at 12:13 PM on Feb 13:
Candace, you just wrote what I've been thinking for the past two weeks or so. Check out Father Jonathan's article on FOXnews.com:
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/02/02/father_jonathan_porritt/
I believe the real problem is the Godless hearts in this world, who don't know Christ as their Savior. I'm saddened every day by this country's decisiveness to "kill" God. All of us need to pray and be active within this political process.
3. Kate said the following at 12:27 PM on Feb 13:
Babies aren't the problem. Government programs that displace fathers and encourage promiscuity and irresponsibility are.
Sure babies aren't the problem.
Which specific government programs do you have in mind here? Welfare is a broad and slippery term, after all. Also, I tend to assume "displaced fathers" have a bit more agency than that in their actions!
Beyond parents needing to "take responsibility after babies are born..." what about the human hearts of those "displaced" fathers and couples who get pregnant by having unmarried sex who are trading in God's truths about sexuality for lies because of their selfish desire, impulsiveness, and/or ignorance of the truth?
Any policy or program that does not address heart issues is just harm reduction. I'm not saying harm reduction isn't valuable... but it is different from a solution or a "root" of the problem. I see most governmental programs as attempts at harm reduction, whether they are good or not.
4. Kristyn said the following at 12:59 PM on Feb 13:
I agree with Cassandra. I respectfully disagree with your framing of the issue Candace. This is not a referendum on Babies Vs. Government. The Government and your tax dollars will end up supporting these children, as it already does the mother and her pre-existing children. Somehow, the message of personal responsibility and maturity has been lost in the cacophony of dialogue on this issue.
I am seriously troubled by Suleman's seemingly selfish choice to bring these 8 additonal lives into the world. Fecundity without responsibility, in this case - financial preparedness or capacity - should not be lauded nor come with a Paypal account to fund her poor choices. (See the Nadya Suleman family website for further details.)
This story highlights the pervasive and gross presumption that "whatever I choose to do, someone else can pay for." In this case, it will be taxpayers, hospitals (read other people's health insurance premiums), and those who pony up their money to her paypal account.
5. Carrie (the original) said the following at 1:28 PM on Feb 13:
When it comes to welfare - it's a total personal matter with me. I don't understand it. In my experience, it goes to people who are irresponsible.
What sense does it make for tax dollars to go to medicare . . . that pays for rehab for people who don't quit . . . people who still mooch of their parents and play the victim. There is no incentive for these people to be actual parents. All it does it enable them to lean on the government like they did their parents.
Yes, some times people really do help. There are those cases, but they tend to be the exception and not the rule.
6. DannieA said the following at 1:35 PM on Feb 13:
I guess I'm confused...I don't see anything in the Frank article that is off base....
anything that is getting good press is something that people are going to try to do...right now it's the "in" thing to have a big family...ergo, some people will make silly decisions about how many children they can reasonably have.
7. BDB said the following at 1:47 PM on Feb 13:
Hmmm...Frank and I have several friends in common. Not facebook friends...I guess one is on facebook...
8. Eliza said the following at 1:58 PM on Feb 13:
Carrie #5,
It just so happens that my parents were on the verge of bankruptcy this year (my father's managers pocketed money from his small business, neglected to pay the mortgage or taxes and so the bank came and took everything and the government threatened to put my dad in jail) and my in-laws are going through bankruptcy at the moment. Both of my in-laws have cancer, their house is worth nothing in this market (which they still owe $80K+ on ), my mother-in-law has a part-time government job and my father-in-law is a genius and yet finds himself currently unemployed in rural upstate NY. My husband and I and his sister are doing what we can financially for them without falling into a whole ourselves, but it's not a whole lot. These are hard-working libertarian people who detest welfare, and yet I am so, so, so thankful my mother-in-law at least has Medicaid (which she was almost refused) so she can at least see a doctor for her breast cancer.
Please don't make sweeping comments about the losers who lean on government handouts. It really doesn't sound like you know what you're talking about.
Personally, I definitely don't think that eliminating welfare is going to encourage deadbeat dads to stick around. Or make the families of those babies any healthier or happier.
9. Adam said the following at 2:46 PM on Feb 13:
I don't think anyone is saying that babies are the problem. That is not what I gathered from Frank at all.
Let's fix the system, so that parents have to provide for their kids. Is this really that insane? I abhor the fact that the fruits of my labors go towards raising someone else's kids via welfare, wic, food stamps, and a host of other programs. If I was living in California, I would be calling my congressman to do something about the Suleman catastrophe. I shouldn't have to pay to raise her kids.
If I am going to have to pay, the state should take her kids away. From the little information that I can see, she is clearly an unfit mother.
10. Carrie (the original) said the following at 3:30 PM on Feb 13:
Eliza - the person I described above is my brother.
I went on to say that there are exceptions to the rule, but that they are exceptions. Your parents would be exceptions.
11. composer girl said the following at 3:41 PM on Feb 13:
I think the problem is BAD VERB USAGE.
I don't think that Frank Pastore is blaming babies. I think that he's blaming irresponsible individuals who don't take responsibility to support themselves or their families.***
I think that he confused the issue by his use of one word: "growing." That word usually connotes in the American mind the idea of babies, not adults (e.g. "Those two have been pretty busy growing babies!"). But this excerpt does not make sense if he's talking about babies:
"citizens who don’t even try to pay their own way..."
...babies are incapable of paying their own way...that's why they're called "dependants..."
"...who willfully choose to take limited resources away from deserving others..."
...it is not a "willful" decision on the part of the baby; he/she didn't choose to be conceived and born...
"...and who live in such a way that they just assume it’s someone else’s responsibility to take care of them."
It IS somebody else's responsibility, namely, the parents', to take care of their babies.
If Frank Pastore is talking about babies here, then he is a cruel man. If he is talking about adults, the word "growing" probably was not the best choice of verbs.
12. composer girl said the following at 3:50 PM on Feb 13:
***Please let it be known that I do not make a blanket condemnation over everyone who relies on government welfare. I know people who legitimately need financial support, for example, a high school student who was being raised by disabled grandparents. And I know people who are just irresponsible, for example, a set of parents who can work, but don't, and use welfare money to fund their drug addiction.
There are definitely those who legitimately cannot provide for themselves or their families, whether that be forever or for a season. These people should be cared for through whatever means possible, whether that is government funding or support from churches or charitable organizations. The people that Frank Pastore was talking about, I believe, were the people in the other category: those who CAN contribute to a better and stronger society, but CHOOSE not to; those who choose to rely on the rest of American society to help them continue their parasitic existence.
13. Eliza said the following at 5:23 PM on Feb 13:
Carrie,
My brothers are rather irresponsible themselves, so I'm not unfamiliar with people who play victim. My point was that your anecdote is just as worthless as mine in describing what percentage of welfare recipients are "unworthy" according to someone's definition.
And it's true, I only have anecdotes. I appreciate the government healthcare and unemployment I've been able to recieve in the past and that's there for other people like me, and am more than happy to pay taxes to support those things, even if some of it is "wasted" (which is a philosophical question, I think). But then again, I'm very happy to be living in Massachusetts, so that isn't much of a surprise!
14. Laura said the following at 5:50 PM on Feb 13:
OK, hold up.
Y'all have taken a lot of flak lately for questioning the "birth control" culture in the West, and I have quietly agreed. But this confuses me. You seem to be tacitly defending someone who took her fertility into her own hands (something y'all have questioned very seriously in the birth control posts), who went outside God's design for marriage and family and demanded her own way despite the consequences.
A couple who lovingly welcomes God's gift of children is certainly blessed, and if God should see fit to bless such a couple with many, many children, then praise the Lord! But what I'm trying to say is that an unmarried woman who cavalierly creates life and has a dozen living embryos implanted in her womb is hardly the poster child for a Christian understanding of childbearing.
The point of rejecting the birth control culture is to leave the giving of children in God's hands. The point is NOT to have lots of kids by whatever means necessary.
There is a huge difference between questioning what Nadya Suleman did (and what we as Americans do -- namely live a self-gratifying, Veruca Salt, "I want it NOW" lifestyle) and being somehow anti-baby.
15. Rebecca said the following at 7:19 PM on Feb 13:
American evangelicals drive me crazy. Why do you always feel the need to blame government programs? Have you forgotten that Jesus loves poor people?
16. Beth said the following at 8:07 PM on Feb 13:
As a Christian, I think people are getting turned off from Christianity because they see Christians as not being compassionate. This blog shows this point. I'm sure there are people who don't deserve to be on welfare, but as Christians we need to be compassionate to the poor. What a testimony it would be if Christians cared more for the poor rather than electing members of the Republican party.
17. farmer Tom said the following at 8:26 PM on Feb 13:
Candice,
I must respectfully disagree with your assessment of Pastore's column.
He is one hundred percent correct. We have become a nation of Nadya Sulemans.
We have abandoned personal responsibility in favor of a system where we take from those who work, and give to those who claim victim status.
As I said in the previous post on this subject, I am not in the least bit conflicted in my views on this woman and Candice you should not be either.
Please don't allow yourself to fall into the trap of allowing for stupid and irrational behavior simply because babies are involved. It is completely acceptable to condemn this womans behavior is the strongest possible terms while at the same time respecting life and suggesting that it is in the best interests of these babies that they be promptly removed from this womans custody and placed in real homes.
God has established clear principles about how He intended for the family to function. This woman knowingly and with forethought attempted to abrogate that pattern which God has established. Therefore, we condemn her sinful behavior, we refuse to support her with our finances and we demand that the children born from this abuse of medical science be placed in loving two parent (male/female) homes. End of discussion.
8. Eliza,
Please, please do not place such a low regard on members of your own family who are experiencing the struggles of life, (financial and health problems). For which there is legitimate need of assistance, (I would prefer that assistance come from the church) and compared them with a self centered, societal leach who believes it is the duty of those who work hard for what they have, to pay for her narcissistic self indulgences.
No one will argue that we should not help those in need like your family members. How we do it, (I want the church not the government to do charity work) is another question. But this woman does not need charity, she needs a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, she needs to confess her sins, and she needs to give these children what they most desperately need, parents who love them and will raise them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. If she really loved these babies, she would find good adoptive homes for every single one of them.
18. Some Dude said the following at 9:25 PM on Feb 13:
When Frank Pastore talks about citizens "who don’t even try to pay their own way, who willfully choose to take limited resources away from deserving others", he is referring to irresponsible adults, not babies.
19. Elizabeth H. said the following at 11:38 PM on Feb 13:
I would ask Mr. Pastore: Who is "we"? Americans? Is it collective wrongdoing?
I don't agree with him, but I don't think he is saying that babies are the problem....he's saying that we adults who raise the children are the problem.
In reading both his statement, and your statement, Candice, I stop to think... am I guilty in this situation? Am I by my example somehow contributing to the problem?
I tend to agree with Kate in #3. We can try to influence government policies one way or another, but it's hearts that need to be reached.
20. Becky said the following at 12:32 AM on Feb 14:
I have to admit my hackles are up right now. What's got me upset is Adam's (#9) remark about those that use WIC.
Do you know who qualifies for WIC?
Soldiers do. (Airman, Sailors, Marines)
The same guys who are in Iraq and Afghanistan protecting your freedom are the same ones that have to use WIC to get food for their kids. Be careful with your blanket statements.
21. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 2:32 AM on Feb 14:
“What ‘entitlements’ for some people mean is forcing other people to work for their benefit. As a bumper sticker put it: ‘Work harder. Millions of people on welfare are depending on you.’” — Hoover Institution economist Thomas Sowell.
Sowell has also pointed out that a whopping 75% of all money supposedly for welfare goes to the bloated programs and bureaucracies aka poverty pimps rather than to the poor themselves.
22. Leeandra said the following at 1:32 PM on Feb 14:
Re: WIC
WIC stands for women, infants, and children. It is (with very few exceptions) for poor pregnant and nursing women, their babies, and poor children up to five years old. The products that can be bought with WIC vouchers are limited to high-nutrition, low-cost items (milk, cheese, eggs, dry beans, carrots, etc.) It is also a way for the gov't to not waste the excess milk and cheese they buy with dairy subsidies.
Before WIC, rickets was a common problem among poor children whose parents could not afford to buy them nutritious food. This is a disease caused by lack of calcium and vitamin D and it causes the bones to become soft. Children with rickets often ended up severely bow-legged if not outright crippled. It's extremely painful and expensive to treat (severe cases are treated by breaking, then straightening the thigh bones.)
It's an easy disease to prevent, mainly by seeing that kids get good nutrition in their first five years. Since the inception of WIC in the 1960s, rickets has almost completely disappeared.
I can't say I mind my tax dollars going to support this program.
23. farmer Tom said the following at 1:38 PM on Feb 14:
20. Becky,
You have every right to be offended, however make sure you choose the right object at which to point your anger.
No soldier, sailor, airmen or Marine should ever be so poorly paid as to need those programs.
We have parties in our government who want a strong voluntary military force, who also want to treat those same volunteers as nothing more than well trained slaves. Wages in the military are abysmally low when compared to wages in the civilian work force. So the solution is to raise the wages. Pay the members of the United States military a fair wage, then they would not need welfare programs.
24. farmer Tom said the following at 2:05 PM on Feb 14:
15. Rebecca,
16. Beth,
Ladies, the Scripture also says,
2 Thessalonians 3:10
Your continual bleating about the poor, while ignoring man kinds responsibility to for provide for himself/herself is a testament too a lack of Biblical knowledge.
Jesus also said in John 12:8,
Yes we are to have compassion on those in genuine need, but the problems will never go away, and no where in Scripture is responsibility for the poor a role of the government. Charity is to be done by individual and the church.
Furthermore, we see in I Timothy 5 that there is a place for charity within the church, but very strong conditions are placed on women who have children that are not being provided for because there is no father in the home.
Some mindless woman who chooses to have 14 children out of wedlock, is not only Biblically ineligible for charity for they church, she is to be treated as an infidel.
Read I Timothy 5 carefully, your understanding of Biblical charity is very very inadequate.
3Give proper recognition to those widows who are really in need. 4But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God. 5The widow who is really in need and left all alone puts her hope in God and continues night and day to pray and to ask God for help. 6But the widow who lives for pleasure is dead even while she lives. 7Give the people these instructions, too, so that no one may be open to blame. 8If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
9No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband,[a] 10and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the saints, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds.
11As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. 12Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. 13Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to. 14So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander. 15Some have in fact already turned away to follow Satan.
16If any woman who is a believer has widows in her family, she should help them and not let the church be burdened with them, so that the church can help those widows who are really in need.
25. Nancy said the following at 2:27 PM on Feb 14:
Just to illuminate the debate with a personal example of families who receive government assistance:
As someone who ate government sponsored lunches for at least two years of elementary school, I can tell you that my working parents were not slackers. First my dad, then my mom, were laid off during those two years. There are MANY more working poor receiving government help than "slackers" exploiting welfare.
My dad (with government help) took classes at a technical school to find a new job, and my mom's company was able to hire her back after 6 months of layoff. Without free lunches, we would've gone hungry.
As it was, my grandma's Christmas gift to my dad was taking in the waistbands of all of his pants. He lost a lot of weight during that time of eating soup for dinner many nights, and making sure we kids were fed before himself.
26. Ted Slater said the following at 3:05 PM on Feb 14:
My wife and I were on WIC in the months before I was hired as editor of Boundless.
Discuss.
27. BDB said the following at 3:49 PM on Feb 14:
One of the reasons soldiers' families are qualifying for WIC is that the all-volunteer military has resulted in a much older force. Instead of 19-year-old draftees serving their 2 years, you have an average age closer to 29. The compensation in the lower ranks was designed for single guys, with no dependents, living on base, with free housing, transportion, food and medical care - and therefore no other real physical needs. The service academies actually do not permit cadets to be married. Though, the Air Force has adjusted it's policies somewhat so that cadets married within 60 days of graduation can be assigned together as a couple. There are apparently a number of weddings at the AF Academy right after graduation each year.
This works for the Air Force in part because they fly all over the place. They may be "based" somewhere, but really, they're traveling alot.
28. BDB said the following at 4:12 PM on Feb 14:
One of the reasons the bureaucracy gets so big in government is the cycle of "accountability." Periodically there is a scandal somewhere, resulting in calls for "accountability." Usually, this takes the form of writing reports of some kind. So, to get into compliance, governments create new bureaucrat positions to prepare those reports.
The same thing happens in education. If the school districts were to cut the bureaucracy to put more money into the classroom, something would fall through the cracks. Then there would be someone noticing, and the press would be all over the compliance failure. "They're not following the law!"
So, they have to hire another person with a master's degree who can continually write reports on that particular issue. Even if they need to lay off a teacher to get into compliance.
Much of the accountability for programs for the poor is focused on rooting out fraud. Or at least detecting it before allocating benefits. Due to layoffs or other issues, many families can end up on WIC if they have small children. The fraud actually comes later on - when they DO get new jobs, and they keep accepting benefits. It's a problem with unemployment insurance, too, when people get benefits then work under the table. There's not nearly enough people to catch everyone who wants to break the rules like that.
I actually had a welfare fraud investigator contact me about a neighbor once. I think she asked me a trick question - if the woman had a newborn. I'd only seen toddlers, but I wasn't exactly close to those neighbors. I vaguely remembered that a baby had been born a couple of years earlier, which wouldn't be a newborn to me.
29. Becky said the following at 5:47 PM on Feb 14:
Farmer Tom your right that the wages of the military need to be increased but it literally takes an act of congress and well we all know how that goes. There was an increase last year and it almost didn't pass because of politics.
Until their wages are enough, your tax dollars are going towards WIC, which some people "abhor". My point is before someone starts making blanket statements about people on government assistance they need to take a closer look at those people. Not all of them are loser/slackers/what ever name you wanna give 'em.
30. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 5:54 PM on Feb 14:
I've mentioned before about how government welfare bureaucracies soak up most of the money supposedly for the "poor", as well as how they crowded out far more effective private charities. John Stossel writes:
I once thought there was too much poverty for private charity to make much of a difference. Now I realize that private charity would do much more — if government hadn't crowded it out. In the 1920s — the last decade before the Roosevelt administration launched its campaign to federalize nearly everything — 30 percent of American men belonged to mutual aid societies, groups of people with similar backgrounds who banded together to help members in trouble. They were especially common among minorities.
Mutual aid societies paid for doctors, built orphanages and cooked for the poor. Neighbors knew best what neighbors needed. They were better at making judgments about who needs a handout and who needed a kick in the rear. They helped the helpless, but administered tough love to the rest. They taught self-sufficiency.
Mutual aid didn't solve every problem, so government stepped in. But government didn't solve every problem either. Instead, it caused more problems by driving private charity out. Today, there are fewer mutual-aid societies, because people say, "We already pay taxes for HUD, HHS. Let the professionals do it." Big Government tells both the poor and those who would help them, "Don't try."
31. pass the ammunition said the following at 6:56 PM on Feb 14:
Ted: That is exactly the type of thing government welfare programs are for. People in rough situations. Very few people remain on government assistance permanently (besides disability and social security). Whoopi Goldberg, for example has testified before Congress about how she survived on welfare to support her child while she was trying to make it big.
Many people have all these anecdotal examples of the lazy poor abusing the system. I question the veracity of these examples, and I would like to know how many people can claim to PERSONALLY know (not a friend of a friend) a single mother who is living high on the taxpayer's hog?
Also: the government is not the church. Even if the Bible had moral requirements for a widow to receive charity, we do not live in a theocracy and not everyone in America subscribes to Biblical Christianity, much less Farmer Tom's interpretation.
32. BDB said the following at 7:37 PM on Feb 14:
#31
Yes, you a right that much of it is based on anecdote. The anecdote in my family came from my grandfather.
When he worked for the school system, one part of his job was to make truancy checks on children in federal aid programs. This required home visits. He tells stories of going to these "poor" households and seeing that they had nicer cars than he did, in addition to alcohol and tobbaco packaging. He found it very annoying that these "poor" seemed to be living higher than he was.
But that's not usually how it starts out. You do have people who end up in a serious situation where they need immediate help. In this economy, that is happening more.
Where the fraud comes in is two years later, when their situation has changed (living with family or a new boyfriend or whatever), and they stay on benefits because, technically, they aren't earning the income, but they live in a household where someone they are not married to is earning that income.
33. Hannah C. said the following at 8:57 PM on Feb 14:
Wow.
First of all, I am disgusted by the comments stating that Nadya Suleman's children should be summarily taken from her and placed in "good Christian mother-father" homes solely because she decided to give life to the rest of her six (which turned into eight) embryos. Until it is clearly proven that she actually is an unfit mother, there is absolutely no reason her children should be TAKEN AWAY from her. This is a free country, not one where the government gets to decide when one can keep the children and when one cannot.
Secondly, concerning Adam (#9)'s comment:
"Let's fix the system, so that parents have to provide for their kids. Is this really that insane? I abhor the fact that the fruits of my labors go towards raising someone else's kids via welfare, wic, food stamps, and a host of other programs. If I was living in California, I would be calling my congressman to do something about the Suleman catastrophe. I shouldn't have to pay to raise her kids.
If I am going to have to pay, the state should take her kids away. From the little information that I can see, she is clearly an unfit mother."
I abhor the fact that this person said this.
My father was laid off several times, through no fault of his own, and my parents lived off credit cards for years because that was the only way they could survive. During this time, we received WIC and food stamps, because that was the only way my family could afford to eat. Due to government formulas which are messed up, my family got much more food stamp money than we actually needed. Regardless of whether we qualified for those government programs or not, I qualified for free lunch all throughout high school. Only this year has my father got a decent job, praise God.
And you are saying that this aid should be removed and that people should starve? Or are you just saying that you don't feel the need to fulfill the Bible's mandates to be charitable and not judge? Sometimes bad things happen to good people, things that they cannot avoid, and then they are stuck. The solution is not to let them starve. There are issues with government programs, but I have never met someone who lives off welfare.
I once read a book which I cannot now remember the name of; it may have been Nickel and Dimed, it may have been something by John Stossel. One of the people interviewed in the book said that she stayed on welfare and didn't work because when she got a job, her welfare went down - so she was getting the exact same amount of money, barely enough to live on, and was working long hours and not seeing her kids. So she quit. Can any of us honestly say that her choice was senseless or wrong?
The problem is not with the idea of aid programs; the problem is in government bureaucracy, formulas, and how the government has screwed stuff up. Regardless, the programs are useful in that they do indeed help people in times of need, people who would probably not be helped any other way because of lack of generosity in today's world.
34. khalil said the following at 9:27 PM on Feb 14:
#31,
I can't say I have seen people living "high" off the taxpayer's hog, but I have seen far too many people abusing it.
I used to work (10 years) for local government. If you count the EIC (earned income credit, basically gives people a tax/cash refund even if they paid NO taxes) and benefits like medicaid, foodstamps, free school lunches, and free or low-income housing then we have a system that allows people to live off our paid-tax dollars. The catch is that while they aren't living "high" there is no incentive for them to find a job or seek a way to better themselves because it is easier to leech off the system rather than contribute to it. If they get a job that pays fairly then they run the risk of losing benefits.
I personally have seen families that rely on the system I just described, not until they can do better...they do it because we enable them as a society and system to. The children have nice clothing ($100-$200 pairs of shoes, name brand pants, etc) and often the latest electronics (Xbox, PS3, etc). When you walk into the house you may be lucky to find a couch but you will see a 42" hi-def tv with surround-sound. They might not be living with wealth but they are living with more than I can reasonably afford.
When I was growing up my family relied on WIC/foodtamps/aid to get them through the rough times. They never expected it to last, it was only accessed when there was trouble putting food on the table. Once they were stable financially my parents never expected that to continue. My parents knew what many either don't know or refuse to accept. You aren't supposed to live off foodstamps!!! They are supposed to supplement an income, not be the sole method of getting food and nutrition.
The problem is we have a segment of society that expects handouts. We have unwed single mothers putting out babies left and right, usually with multiple fathers. We have children that learn to milk the system and not work for anything, they develop the mindset that the government will take care of them. We also have fathers that don't know what it is to be a man and father the children they helped create. Nobody is holding anyone accountable and until it happens we will not see anything change. Government will continue to grow and steal what people rightfully earn and give it to people that don't contribute to society.
In my 10 years of working with children and families I can say there have probably been less than 20 families that did not milk the system and either 1) were doing well for themselves or 2) did access the system for help but were in the process of trying to change the direction of their lives.
You've even mentioned disability. That is another "benefit" that is taken advantage of. ADD/ADHD? get a disability check. High blood pressure? Get a check. "Car accident injury'? Get a check. Yes, there are legitimate cases in which disability is called for, but in this section of society getting a disability check is another free meal ticket, and a way that limits how much they can make (if they choose to work).
We have set people up to fail and for allowing them to continue to take advantage of this we can blame no one but ourselves.
35. Leah said the following at 11:51 PM on Feb 14:
I don't think Frank is blaming babies. He's blaming what people raise them to be.
36. B.T.Carolus said the following at 2:08 AM on Feb 15:
Pass the Amunition (# 31)
I know a woman who has openly admitted to not marrying the father of her two children (whom she lives with) and not working as much as she could, in order to qualify for various government programs. So yes, it does happen.
37. Aliyah said the following at 8:52 AM on Feb 15:
I think we're missing the point here. If welfare programs that provide care for young children, especially, were cut, then the "irresponsible" parents wouldn't bear the brunt of the pain-- the innocent children would. That's what welfare does-- it protects society's most vulnerable members.
38. Christina (in green) said the following at 2:17 PM on Feb 15:
I remembered something after reading BDB's and Khalil's descriptions of what they or family members have witnessed in the government welfare system.
I used to volunteer for a food bank - privately owned and operated - no government involved except for tax-exempt status.
All the food was donated by Publix - packaging with a crushed corner or a dented lid that didn't pass inspection for being put on a shelf (it was located in Lakeland, FL - home of Publix).
My boyfriend at the time and I did this for 2 years...we would bag the food-stuffs to be delivered, pile it into his car, and then go deliver it.
Rarely did we see what BDB and Khalil described. When we did, my boyfriend would let the food bank know and they may have gotten one more delivery from someone higher up in the organization before being taken off their distribution list.
That's something you don't get with Government programs. There isn't that kind of accountability.
39. Jo said the following at 3:32 PM on Feb 15:
khalil, #34 said:
"The catch is that while they aren't living "high" there is no incentive for them to find a job or seek a way to better themselves because it is easier to leech off the system rather than contribute to it."
I agree that this is the biggest problem. And it's often not the person's fault. Once you get trapped in the system, you end up having to juggle working hours so that you don't end up losing a lot of money. For example, if you're receiving £100 per week in benefits but will lose it if you earn over £50, you're obviously not going to take a couple of extra hours and earn £60, only to be £90 down on the deal.
I think they try and combat that by reducing benefits in a graded way, but still a lot of the time you end up no better off for working more. So unless you already have an inbuilt work ethic, there's not much incentive to do it.
Then of course there are those who work for cash so the government don't know about it and they get to keep their benefits too. And yes I do know someone that has done that. Probably still does.
Fraud aside though, I don't know how the problems can be solved. If you're going to give someone enough to live on, you run the risk that they're not going to bother trying to find work. If you don't give them enough to live on, there's no point giving them anything in the first place. If everyone had that inbuilt work ethic, the benefits would be used in the way that they're intended. Regardless, I'm glad they're there.
Incidentally, the main disability benefit over here isn't means tested, ie, the amount you earn doesn't come into it. It is however rather difficult to get if the vast majority of your medical treatment is preventative.
40. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 3:47 PM on Feb 15:
Aliyah (#37): you're the one missing the point(s). It's basic economics: If you subsidized something (like having kids out of wedlock), you get more of it. If you tax something (like cigarettes, alchohol ... and work) you get less of it.
You also ignored my comment (#30) about how the rise of bloated welfare bureaucracies croweded out the private charities and mutual aid societies that did much to help.
Hannah C, quoting from the same Stossell, pointed out that the current system with its high effective marginal tax rates that discourage returning to work. Milton Friedman had a good idea with negative taxation, which some Australians have extended, to reform the tax-welfare system completely to get rid of these poverty traps.
Fundamentally, government welfare really is confiscating wealth from some people at gunpoint and redistributing it to other people, with the Government taking a 75% cut!
41. BDB said the following at 4:37 PM on Feb 15:
Hannah C. (#33) wrote:
>>Until it is clearly proven that she actually is an unfit mother, there is absolutely no reason her children should be TAKEN AWAY from her.<<
You're right, there needs to be a neglect finding first.
One of the ways that happens is checking whether the children are living in hygenic conditions and have their own bed. It is typically a requirement that each child have its own bed. From what I've seen in news reports, her existing home will not be large enough to accomodate 14 beds. Legally, I'm not sure how many people can live in the house she has now - apartments typically limit renters to 2.5 or 3 people per bedroom. According to those kinds of regulations, she now needs a 5-bedroom apartment or house to accomodate the family. I would be surprised if she can support herself and her family and meet minimum standards, while taking care of so many children 24-hours per day.
When you add to that the difficulties of serious medical challenges, it's even more difficult. Reportedly, she did get $1 Million for her first interview, which will partially offset her medical bills.
An investigation of he doctor has begun to determine if he violated "standards of care." If he did, I suppose his license can be revoked by the medical board.
42. Kellie said the following at 5:10 PM on Feb 15:
Regarding Ted's comment about WIC. I think following much of Boundless's advice (marry young, have children quickly...and lots of them, mom needs to stay at home) is going to lead to poverty or near poverty for most people. So at least it's nice to see the Boundless staff practicing what they preach.
43. BDB said the following at 5:51 PM on Feb 15:
I think Peggy Noonan captured it best in her recent Wall Street Journal article.
It's Sully and Suleman, the pilot and "Octomom," the two great stories that are twinned with the era. Sully, the airline captain who saved 155 lives by landing that plane just right—level wings, nose up, tail down, plant that baby, get everyone out, get them counted, and then, at night, wonder what you could have done better. You know the reaction of the people of our country to Chesley B. Sullenberger III: They shake their heads, and tears come to their eyes. He is cool, modest, competent, tough in the good way. He's the only one who doesn't applaud Sully. He was just doing his job.
This is why people are so moved: We're still making Sullys. We're still making those mythic Americans, those steely-eyed rocket men. Like Alan Shepard in the Mercury rocket: "Come on and light this candle."
But Sully, 58, Air Force Academy '73, was shaped and formed by the old America, and educated in an ethos in which a certain style of manhood—of personhood—was held high.
What we fear we're making more of these days is Nadya Suleman. The dizzy, selfish, self-dramatizing 33-year-old mother who had six small children and then a week ago eight more because, well, she always wanted a big family. "Suley" doubletalks with the best of them, she doubletalks with profound ease. She is like Blago without the charm. She had needs and took proactive steps to meet them, and those who don't approve are limited, which must be sad for them. She leaves anchorwomen slack-jawed: How do you rough up a woman who's still lactating? She seems aware of their predicament.
Any great nation would worry at closed-up shops and a professional governing class that doesn't have a clue what to do. But a great nation that fears, deep down, that it may be becoming more Suley than Sully—that nation will enter a true depression.
44. Ted Slater said the following at 9:43 PM on Feb 15:
Kellie (#42) -- I'm not sure how to interpret what you wrote.
It sounds like you're insulting me for having gone through a difficult time after being laid off from a previous job. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're saying?
45. BDB said the following at 10:06 PM on Feb 15:
Christina (in Green) #38
I agree that private organizations can do a better job of monitoring who they give to. I know my church has some pretty stringent rules when giving out money, and they do dig pretty deep to find how how people got into the situation, what their family is doing, etc.
A few months ago, helping hand out groceries at our church food bank, I did notice that I was loading groceries into several cars that were better than mine. Now, it's quite possible that those people were just providing the transportation for others who had no transportation.
We did one food delivery to a family clearly in very difficult straits. Another was to a house much nicer than mine; albeit that the owner had a lot of serious health issues. A third to a young family out of work due to the construction meltdown hitting here.
We were just visiting volunteers. There were a couple of volunteers moving like the wind - they got a TON done, it was clear they had been doing this a while. At the end of the evening, they left with a box of food, too. It hadn't occurred to me that they had volunteered to work instead of just taking a hand out. Those women worked hard.
46. L. from Canada said the following at 10:38 PM on Feb 15:
I felt the same way about welfare (that we should get rid of it) until I was forced to listen to a presentation on the Canadian welfare system in one of my classes. The presenter used several true stories to emphasize that not every person on welfare is lazy, has many kids to receive welfare, or thinks the government owes them free $$$. I learned that embarassed fathers apply for welfare only after they've tried every other avenue to feed, clothe, and shelter their family after being laid off. I heard about immigrants who are unable to continue in the careers they spent years studying for once they arrive in Canada. I learned about second and third generation welfare receivers who grew up in the cycle of poverty and never learned the life skills we take for granted from their (often) single mothers. There are many flaws in our social services system but we often only hear about the abusers & misusers of welfare.
47. Leah said the following at 3:34 AM on Feb 16:
Kelly (42) - I think you've seriously misunderstood and are misrepresenting what Boundless stands for.
Boundless does not advocate "marry young, have children quickly... and lots of them, mom needs to stay home" for the sake of it. They are not saying to get married young for the sake of it. They're saying to get married young rather than living together, having sex before marriage or purposely putting off marriage for the sake of career. They're saying to have children young rather than purposely putting them off for the sake of career. They're saying have more children (what's 'lots' anyway? 3? 8? 15?) rather than 1 or 2 for selfish reasons. They're saying Mum should stay home if possible and rather than going back to work just for her own self fulfillment.
That means that there's nothing wrong with getting married later in life if you've simply not found a suitable spouse. It means there's nothing wrong with having children later in life if you've not been able to get married til then, or perhaps have had major financial or health issues. It means there's nothing wrong with only having 1, 2, or no kids if there's major health issues, or if you've tried and it's just not happening. It means there's nothing wrong with Mum going back to work if Dad is incapacitated, or not present, or if they hit financial trouble that requires the extra income.
It ALSO allows for people to make wise decisions that will NOT lead them into poverty. Boundless would never advocate a man marrying a woman if he could not financially support her and a potential family. They'd tell him that if he was serious about it, he should get a better job and THEN marry her. Boundless would never advocate a couple having a dozen children if they honestly could not afford it. (This does not mean "oh we won't be able to eat out every week" or "oh the children won't have their own rooms", it means "oh we won't be able to pay the power bill" or "oh we won't be able to put enough food on the table".) They'd say that if you want a dozen kids, you need to financially prepare yourself (Heather's articles address this a lot) and THEN do it.
So let's not purposely misconstrue a person or organisation's opinion on an issue, ok?
48. khalil said the following at 7:04 AM on Feb 16:
#38, You are correct. With the private programs I've had the opportunity to work with I've seen a much higher level of accountability as well.
49. Kellie said the following at 8:46 AM on Feb 16:
No, I'm not trying to insult you. Most of us are going to use some sort of government money at one or another in our lives (I used disability and paid family leave recently when I had my baby). I just get frustrated if one looks at all the advice on family life Boundless gives....I honestly think it is going to lead to ruin for most people, that you are only looking at the ideal circumstances. It's good to see that perhaps you haven't always had the ideal life.
50. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 9:48 AM on Feb 16:
Leah (#47) is right and Kellie (#42) is mistaken, sorry. I don't know if Dr Walter Williams is a Christian, but he's an economics professor as well as an African American, and points out that one can mostly avoid poverty in America by graduating from highschool, refusing to commit a crime, getting a job (including a minimum wage one to start with), and marrying before having kids. To back this up, he says:
Let's examine some numbers readily available from the Census Bureau's 2004 Current Population Survey and ask some questions. There's one segment of the black population that suffers only a 9.9 percent poverty rate, and only 13.7 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor.
There's another segment that suffers a 39.5 percent poverty rate, and 58.1 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. Among whites, one segment suffers a 6 percent poverty rate, and only 9.9 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. The other segment suffers a 26.4 percent poverty rate, and 52 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. What do you think distinguishes the high and low poverty populations among blacks?
Would you buy an explanation that it's because white people practice discrimination against one segment of the black population and not the other or one segment had a history of slavery and not the other? You'd have to be a lunatic to buy such an explanation. The only distinction between both the black and white populations is marriage — lower poverty in married-couple families.
In 1960, only 28 percent of black females ages 15 to 44 were never married and illegitimacy among blacks was 22 percent. Today, the never-married rate is 56 percent and illegitimacy stands at 70 percent. If today's black family structure were what it was in 1960, the overall black poverty rate would be in or near single digits. The weakening of the black family structure, and its devastating consequences, have nothing to do with the history of slavery or racial discrimination.
51. Beth said the following at 9:57 AM on Feb 16:
I have to agree with Kellie's comment. Boundless does advocate getting married young, having many babies, and women not working. I'm sorry but telling people to get married young may make for more problems in the future. Sorry to tell you this boundless but not everybody wants tons and tons of kids. Also, news flash a woman can work outside the home if she wants to. First of all if couples get married young, they may not be able to finish their college degrees. Also, then if they don't use any birth control, they will have too many children than they can't afford. Than if dad doesn't have a good job and mom doesn't work, where is the money going to come from? I don't care if a woman works or not or if a couple has 5 kids or 2 kids. But, I don't like how it is insisted that only good Christians are the ones that get married young and have lots of kids.
52. Keisha said the following at 10:12 AM on Feb 16:
Khalil wrote:
"If you count the EIC (earned income credit, basically gives people a tax/cash refund even if they paid NO taxes) and benefits like medicaid, foodstamps, free school lunches, and free or low-income housing then we have a system that allows people to live off our paid-tax dollars. The catch is that while they aren't living "high" there is no incentive for them to find a job or seek a way to better themselves because it is easier to leech off the system rather than contribute to it."
Please do your research before you write things that are factually wrong - it is unfair and misleading. The EITC, Earned Income Tax Credit, is a program that is designed to encourage work by subsidizing people's Earned Income, hence the name. No work, that is, no earned income - no tax credit. The EITC is an example of a negative income tax, as mentioned by Jonathan Sarfati - it's a "negative" tax because government is paying taxpayers for some levels of earnings.
To be complete, the EITC is reduced by a percentage for each dollar earned over $10K, so there is some disincentive to work over the phase-out range of earnings. However, it's not reduced dollar-for-dollar, so you do earn something additional by working more.
I also wanted to challenge those who have quoted John Stossel and others about government programs crowding out private charity. Where is an example - a current example, not an idealized one from America's past - of a country in the world today where there is no welfare state and Christian organizations take care of the country's poor? I'm asking because I can think of a bunch of counter-examples - Christian countries where there is no welfare state and the poor live in slums in uneducated, sick misery. Look at Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Brazil, almost any country in Central or South America. Ghana, Nigeria, Rwanda... the list goes on and on. There are rich Christian people in these countries, but their poor people are worse off than ours. Even America of days past had people starving and getting rickets (as mentioned above) and living in shacks with no running water into the 1930s. Why didn't Christian organizations mobilize a New Deal?
And... I'm still trying to process the fact that Ted's family was using WIC. I thought that he was against welfare programs... It's great to have your assumptions challenged.
53. Christina (in green) said the following at 10:32 AM on Feb 16:
Beth and Kellie -
The both of you have a very limited idea of what it takes to raise a family.
Seriously, you don't need to make $80,000 a year to support a family of 3-5 with a parent staying at home.
What? Do you think each child should have their own room?
If more people were willing to give up the things that aren't necessary, you'd be surprised at what can be accomplished.
BDB -
Are you serious that you can have children taken away if they share a bed? What's that all about? My sister and I shared a bed for 11 years before someone gave us their old bunk beds! (their sons left for college and gave us the bed)
When we had a trundle bed given to us, those same bunk beds went to my brothers with a baby crib mattress as a pull out under the bed for the third brother until my parents could afford one of those nifty bunks with the full-sized bed on bottom - and yes, two of them shared a bed then and did so until I left for college.
Why people think that is wrong when the home is clean is beyond me. Sparse and clean is far better than full and a disaster.
54. Beth said the following at 10:42 AM on Feb 16:
There is no shame in having to use government programs, it is a shame when people make other people feel bad for using the same government programs they have used.
55. Eliza said the following at 10:55 AM on Feb 16:
Farmer Tom #17,
I have a low regard for my family members who are going through a hard time??? Where the heck did you get that idea? I'm ripped up about it and us kids are doing everything we can to keep them from becoming homeless and destitute! I really despise the implication that I somehow disrespect my family and the situation they're in.
As for the church taking care of its members, yeah, that'd be nice if my father-in-law wasn't the richest member of his church for years. His tithe was essentially the pastor's salary. Upstate central NY is a down-and-out place. Everyone in their church is barely holding on themselves, let alone supporting another whole family.
This is why I really need to stop commenting on boundless. It never leaves me in a good place.
56. Eliza said the following at 11:07 AM on Feb 16:
Okay, I want to apologize to Farmer Tom #17 for misunderstanding his statement the first time around. You were saying that I was belittling my parents by comparing them to losers who misuse the system?
Despite my initial misunderstanding, I still completely disagree. The system was created for people like my parents, not for the cheats. If anything, my parents are the ones whose stories are the prime example of why it's important to have government supports like this! Just because cheating exists doesn't mean the entire system is a failure and should be dumped.
And, to repeat for emphasis, my in-laws parents' church is in no position to be able to help. Church aid is not an option.
57. Eliza said the following at 11:08 AM on Feb 16:
And yes, Boundless DOES encourage people to marry young, have (many) kids young and to live on one income. I have never seen any other perspective on this site.
58. Jen said the following at 11:40 AM on Feb 16:
I agree with Kellie as well. I definitely think Boundless advocates marrying young, having many kids and living on one income as the best way, if not the only "Christian" way, to do things. I think it's great for families who can do that, but the reality is that it's not financially feasible for everyone, and it can also put people in vulnerable financial positions. Some women work not because they put their career before their families, but in order to make a better life for their families or as a safety net in case the father loses his job so that they don't have to resort to government benefits.
59. Beth said the following at 11:51 AM on Feb 16:
I don't have a limited understand of what it takes to raise a family. My parents raised my brother and I on less than that and on one income. I'm just saying that the advice on boundless about marrying young, having children young, and having many children that young may is not the most financially sound. It is time boundless starts promoting articles that influence people to be responsible adults. That includes not marrying at the age of 18, having a baby shortly thereafter, and having lots more babies for as long as you can.
60. jen said the following at 11:51 AM on Feb 16:
By the way, I am not at all condemning Ted for using government benefits--in fact, I'm very glad that they were available to him in a time when he needed them. But I am curious to see what people like Farmer Tom, who believe that the church should be providing this type of aid instead of the government, thinks. I think it would be ideal if the church could provide this, but most churches that I know have nowhere near the money or resources to do so.
61. Ted Slater said the following at 12:21 PM on Feb 16:
Beth (#51) -- I have to say that your comment is repugnant. To insinuate that stay-at-home mothers are "not working" is an uninformed, nasty, offensive thing to say. Indeed, I would argue that women who choose not to delegate their mothering responsibilities to others work HARDER than those who work outside the home.
Besides that insensitive comment, I do want to clarify what Boundless believes. It is NOT the cliched caricature that some have listed.
Motivated by love and experience and research, we encourage singles not to INTENTIONALLY put off getting married, either because they are waiting for the "perfect soul mate" (no such person exists), or because they are idolizing liberation and afraid of responsibility, or because they are enjoying the physical and emotional benefits of marriage without the marriage commitment. What this may SOUND like is that we encourage our readers to marry young. More accurately, we do encourage our readers to try to marry in a timely manner, and not to INTENTIONALLY prolong their single years. Again, our motivation for encouraging such is love.
We do encourage married couples not to put off having children. There'll come a time when wives are physically unable to have children, and so we encourage them to consider the best time to have kids, and encourage them to ask WHY they might only want one or two children. We would argue that our culture has it wrong: that INTENTIONALLY waiting 10 years before giving it a thought may cause regrets, rather than simply provide freedom.
Maybe I'm grumpy. I'm just a bit tired of our good messages being mischaracterized, which may lead some of our readers away from benefitting from our ministry. Maybe I should have simply agreed with Leah's gracious explanation in comment 47 and left it at that.
Jen (#58), you write that you "think it's great for families who can" live on one income. I'm glad we agree. We've published many articles on Boundless and on The Line to show singles what they can do EVEN NOW to facilitate that.
62. BDB said the following at 12:22 PM on Feb 16:
Christina in green (#53) wrote:
>>Are you serious that you can have children taken away if they share a bed? What's that all about?<<
More specifically, it's a requirement before Child Protective Services will return children to a family. I work with a charity that buys bunk beds to help that happen.
It's not a presumption of neglect, I don't think. But if neglect is reported by others (like, say, the press), that's enough cause to look at other things. They can require a bed per kid. Not a high-end yuppie crib, but a separate bed and place for it.
63. BDB said the following at 12:27 PM on Feb 16:
Perhaps if Ted had mentioned his age at the time of WIC, it would have preempted the comments about Boundless encouraging people to marry young. If I remember correctly, Ted's situation involves a mid-career hiccup, not getting married at 20.
64. Beth said the following at 1:15 PM on Feb 16:
I don't like how you put words in my mouth. I never said that stay at home moms don't work. All i meant by the comment was that the man was bringing home the paycheck. You know that's what I meant, you're making controversy we're there is none.
65. IMO said the following at 1:20 PM on Feb 16:
I don't know what articles some of you are reading or trying to read between the lines...but I completely agree with Leah and Ted (who runs the site with others).
Maybe your own biases are getting in the way. I don't know.
Beth,
Those are some serious stereotypes you got going there. Did you have anybody in mind or are you just generalizing?
"But, I don't like how it is insisted that only good Christians are the ones that get married young and have lots of kids."
Please provide a link to an article or anything. Where in the world of Boundless did you get that idea? Seriously, I'd like to know, because I'm not seeing it.
66. Ted Slater said the following at 1:25 PM on Feb 16:
Beth, you wrote:
"Boundless does advocate getting married young, having many babies, and women not working."
Those are your very words; I did not put them in your mouth. It is clear that you have a low estimation of stay-at-home mothers, to insinuate that they are "not working." Perhaps your choice of words was a Freudian slip?
67. Louise from Chicago said the following at 2:19 PM on Feb 16:
Mr. Slater, in your responses to Beth, IMO you are being unnecessarily argumentative.
In the context of comment 52 "Women not working" is an idiom, an expression, meaning "woman not working in outside employment for money."
It's like saying someone "drinks", meaning someone "drinks alcohol beverages."
In some contexes, when you say someone "works" the meaning is that the person "works as a prositute."
If you don't like the idiom "women not working" well that is fine, but I doubt very very much that Beth has intended to insult stay-at-home moms!
68. Hannah C. said the following at 2:34 PM on Feb 16:
BDB (#41):
The idea that every child must have their own bed is an incorrect one, regardless of what the government may think. So is the idea that one can only have 2 or 3 people in a bedroom.
My family has chosen to have the younger ones sleep in sleeping bags or among many quilts on the floor so that their beds can be rolled up during the day and the same room that is used for sleep can be used for play. If there was a bed for everyone in that room, there would be two bunkbeds and no room to play. Also, there would be a much higher chance of accidents. I'm 100% positive it's better to have no beds in this case. Also, why should a child have his or her own room? Once he or she gets to college, unless they go to a very elite college or they are rich and can afford to pay for a single, they will be paired up with a stranger. Having to share a room is good preparation for life.
To Boundless in general:
I just want to say that I greatly appreciate your support of people who decide to get married sooner rather than later. Also, I have NEVER seen any evidence that Boundless supports people having as many babies as they can; indeed, the birth control articles/blogs seemed to me to be saying that that was between the couple and not anyone else.
As someone who wants to be a stay at home mom and would rather NOT wait even two more years to get married to the person I've already been dating for almost 2, I greatly appreciate this being one of the places where such a lifestyle is not repudiated as irresponsible, or lazy, or any of the other negative things which so many people today view it as.
I am curious, however, how much premarital sex factors into the equation. If one believes strongly in no sex before marriage, then waiting is that much harder. If one is already having sex, then it's that much easier to wait until one can "afford" to support oneself. Could that be a factor in today's later average marriage age? Just throwing it out there...
69. Beth said the following at 2:38 PM on Feb 16:
My own mother is a stay-at-home mom. I do not have a low estimation of them, since I don't know what the future holds for me. I think most people with a brain can figure out that all I meant by saying that boundless does not advocate women working was women working outside of the home. Give me a break this is a blog not a college essay.
70. Jeremy said the following at 2:57 PM on Feb 16:
"It is clear that you have a low estimation of stay-at-home mothers, to insinuate that they are 'not working.'"
I have to agree with Beth here; I imagine everyone knew what she meant. Technically speaking, every muscle movement is "work", so at no time when one is alive is he or she not working. But Beth's comment was related to income, and it was clear from context that by "not working" she meant not bringing in income. We don't have to pretend to take offense at things that we know are not meant as offensive.
71. Kate said the following at 2:58 PM on Feb 16:
Beth, 59:
It is time boundless starts promoting articles that influence people to be responsible adults. That includes not marrying at the age of 18, having a baby shortly thereafter, and having lots more babies for as long as you can.
Several people have already responded to your comment... but I thought of some other angles...
How many people do you know who got married young (<20, <25?), and had "lots more babies" right away and were "irresponsible" which I assume that by irresponsible you mean unable to support their families. I don't know ANY. I only know a few people who were married this young and had children right away, and they are all doing great!
On the other hand, I have encountered several women personally (and have encountered many more men and women through social service work) who had varying numbers of children at this early of an age while skipping the getting married part, whether their children were the results of a one-night-stand or a liaison in a more long-term relationship.
Sure it's a correlation, and I'm more likely to guess that people who weren't going to do well/be responsible to begin with tend to self-select into being unmarried with kids at a young age. But maybe the actual difference in God works through marriage does make a difference too?
Presumably, we come from very different types of social backgrounds...?
Also, I think Boundless's work on trying to prepare people for marriage does teach responsibility... in a sense the way they teach preparation for marriage is made of lessons about responsibility. It's not about "sign a marriage license when you are as young as possible" but "strive to be ready for marriage as soon as possible and act upon it."
72. Hannah C. said the following at 2:58 PM on Feb 16:
And things like that one-bed-per-child requirement is why I greatly distrust CPS, the UN Rights of the Child treaty, and any other governmental involvement in parental rights...
I am very aware that CPS exists to rescue children from abuse, and that some cases of horrific abuse exist. I've also heard several stories from people I personally know about how their children were taken away without good evidence and how stories which would have been incredibly easy to prove false were never even investigated. My family was once threatened with having CPS called on them - at church, no less, and in a situation which was not at all abusive, unless letting a child who is throwing a temper tantrum just throw the tantrum is abuse.
I've come to the conclusion that the government really hasn't a clue what it's talking about when it comes to children, and that government formulas are screwed up. My evidence? The fact my family was able to live off leftover food stamp money for six months after benefits stopped, because they were giving us so much due to the amount of people in our family. I don't know what we were supposed to eat to spend that much! Also, the fact that I have a good friend who has a ridiculous amount of loans because she is middle class and can supposedly pay much more for her college than she actually can.
When the government gets involved, and children are involved, more often than not I start to get scared. Midwives, no vaccinations, homeschooling. So many things I grew up with and would like to do with my kids seem only steps away from being outlawed for no good reason that I can see...and there's nothing I personally can do about it. It's scary.
But what is the alternative? Welfare does benefit some who desperately need it and who do get off it. Food stamps, same thing. CPS, same thing - it needs to be there to rescue the few.
73. Kate said the following at 3:03 PM on Feb 16:
Oops, I forgot to specify in my previous comment that out of the people I've encountered who were unmarried and became parents at a young age... there is a much wider variation in how financially sound their lifestyles are... some are doing great and many are not. And obviously, since the people I worked with for social services were coming for social services, I was not encountering people who had sound finances there. But almost all of those clients were unmarried with at least one child born out of wedlock. Very few of them were married.
Of course, why there seems to be such a trend with lack of marriage in lower SES populations is a whole other discussion (and this could be a good topic for another article).
74. Jeremy said the following at 3:08 PM on Feb 16:
"Midwives, no vaccinations, homeschooling. So many things I grew up with and would like to do with my kids seem only steps away from being outlawed for no good reason that I can see..."
... really?
75. Hannah C. said the following at 3:19 PM on Feb 16:
Jeremy (#74):
Yes. I have never been vaccinated, I've been to the doctor about five times in my entire life, and to the dentist twice. You should have seen the expression on the nurse's face when I went in for an ear piercing infection and told the nurse I didn't have a regular doctor!
Last time I went to the dentist, when I was in high school, I was told that I had no cavities and everything was fine. I'm in perfectly fine physical health, too - in three years of high school and going on two years of college, I have never once had to miss a day of school because of sickness.
My parents chose to not have us vaccinated, starting with me, because when my mother took me to get my shots she was given a form stating that I could possibly die as a result of side effects. She chose not to take that risk and I am absolutely fine as are all of my siblings.
If I was ever to go out of the country, to a place where, say, there is still a risk of getting any or most of the diseases they vaccinate for, I would get those shots. If those diseases began to be prevalent in the US again, I would vaccinate my kids.
But I'm fairly sure the fact that I am ACTUALLY immune to chicken pox because I had it at the age of four is going to be a lot better for me than getting a shot, which can wear off, and has been known to on multiple occasions...as the measles epidemics among VACCINATED college students several years ago attests.
76. BDB said the following at 3:34 PM on Feb 16:
Hanna C (#68) wrote:
>>The idea that every child must have their own bed is an incorrect one, regardless of what the government may think. So is the idea that one can only have 2 or 3 people in a bedroom.<<
Well, like I said, it's used as an objective requirement for reuniting children with their parents.
One reason is substance abuse resulting in child neglect. Substance abuse causes parents to be clueless and unable to exercise even the smallest amount of supervision of their children. They literally can't get their act together. The process of meeting the requirement - going out, finding a second-hand bed, and installing it in the home - demonstrates a level of being able to get things done. It's much easier to do that than, say, getting a child ready for school every day. It's easy for the social worker to tell, "Yes, they got the child a bed." It's a lot harder to monitor whether they're getting their kids to school every day or taking them to the doctor for regular checkups. Remember, these are poor parents with government health care already, so not taking them to the doctor is not because of lack of money, it's lack of will to look out for the welfare of the child.
In earlier times, loan underwriters would throw out requirements to see what potential borrowers would do. My dad, being a real estate broker, warned me the underwriter would probably come back with some kind of requirement, just to test to see if the borrower was willing to do what needed to be done. In anticipation of this, when I bought my house, I set $5000 aside. I asked the lender if they wanted me to put it towards the down payment, or to pay off my car to lower my monthly debt load. They said pay off the car, and fax them proof. So I paid it off a year early (good for the credit rating) and demonstrated to them my seriousness.
The limitation on 2-3 people per bedroom is directly related to hygiene. A 3-bedroom house might have only one bathroom. That would be 9 people sharing a toilet. In a septic tank system, that can overwhelm the tank for a residential house, resulting in raw sewage spillage. For one place to squeeze so many into such a living space might work for a while. But if an entire apartment complex had 3 people per bedroom, you could easily overwhelm the sewer system. It's not designed for more than that. All life-sustaining utilities, including water and power, are designed for a certain load. Cram too many people into a facility, and you overload the utilities. With electricity, this can cause fires - putting neighbors at risk, too.
Then you have infectious diseases. Too many people crammed close together means that disease spreads much faster. In single-family homes, there's almost no danger of catching what the neighbors have. Cram 10 people into a small apartment, and when one gets sick, everyone will get sick.
77. dana111 said the following at 3:49 PM on Feb 16:
Hannah typed:
"I am curious, however, how much premarital sex factors into the equation. If one believes strongly in no sex before marriage, then waiting is that much harder. If one is already having sex, then it's that much easier to wait until one can "afford" to support oneself. Could that be a factor in today's later average marriage age?"
I would say, yes it is. I am pretty sure it is easy to argue that marrying as soon as you are physically, emotionally, financial, and spiritually able to do so is some how "irresponsible" when you are currently engaging in premarital sex. If you are getting all of the benefits of marriage without the commitment, then why bother getting married??
I really don't care what anyone says, it is HARDER to stay pure the LONGER you go without marriage. Let's see how many verses in the Bible refer to the sin of premarital and extramarital sex, shall we? If it is important to God that we remain pure, then it should be important to us as well. There is nothing wrong with admitting that marriage is for sex and sex is for marriage. Anyone who denies that basic biblical premise is, at best, unwise or, at worst, trying to justify their sin. Generalization? Perhaps. But, I know plenty of professing Christians who have problems keeping their hands and beds to themselves. Can we just "be real" for a minute, please?
Which one do you think God prefers... a 20 year old married couple who love the Lord and who trust Him completely with their relationship, or a 20 year old couple who participating in fornication because they think they are too young to get married??
78. BDB said the following at 3:50 PM on Feb 16:
I'm sure we are all shaped by our experiences somewhat. My mother used to work in Child Support Enforcement in Washington State, which had a requirement that fathers of children on welfare must pay the state child support for their children.
My mother would regularly encounter women who said they "didn't know" who the father was. One presumes that they were lying to prevent the guy from needing to take responsibility for their actions. My mother eventually got wise to this when she encountered repeats. She would go back in the woman's file, find her address the last time the woman applied for benefits, and arrange paternity testing for the man living at that address. Sure enough, she found lots of fathers that way.
79. k. said the following at 4:38 PM on Feb 16:
Ted - I agree with Louise and Jeremy that Beth's statement about "women not working" is (obviously) about women not working outside the home. You're smart enough to have figured that one out on your own.
80. Khalil said the following at 5:16 PM on Feb 16:
Keisha, #52...
In what you quoted me on I never said they weren't receiving an income, I said that it gave people a reason not to try to search for better paying jobs or ways of improving themselves. I also said this was based on my experience. But you want me to do the research, so here goes.
For a person (single parent) who has an income of $7,000/yr their federal tax bracket is 10%, giving them a tax burden of $700. The EITC for that person would be $2,8000 (40% of their income if they have two children). If used as a true CREDIT the EITC would cover the $700 of that person's tax burden, no more. But, the way that it appears to be in reality is that the remaining $2,100 would be given as a REFUND. Why is that person getting more money back than he or she paid? Sounds to me the government is giving away money.
Correct me if I am wrong, I am not an accountant and not an expert in this area. I would even take a chance and say that the standard deduction might also apply, which would mean the $700 tax burden could be offset by that and the overall refund would be greater than the $2,100. Unless my math is wrong or I am totally ignorant to the way this process works it seems that people (in my experience, YMMV) who are using the EITC generally use it as a crutch, not an incentive to improve their quality of life by seeking a better paying job. The more money they make (at a point it plateaus and eventually starts to decrease) the less credit they receive, which means a smaller refund. A tax refund should only be allowed if a person pays too much tax. By taking advantage of the EITC a person or family is likely not paying too much and should not be getting a refund. Disability can fall into the realm of income, so a person might not actually be working and still be getting a tax refund...which means they are not paying taxes (but I didn't say that previously).
81. Derek Wong said the following at 5:37 PM on Feb 16:
I, along with others, don't really see that you read Pastore's commentary correctly. He wasn't lambasting the children, in fact he says that his heart breaks for them. He is directing his unhappiness at adults who choose not to take responsibility for their own actions and in the bigger picture for our society because we are living in a way that will lead to our downfall.
82. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 5:46 PM on Feb 16:
Keisha (# 52), I don't notice any actual refutation of Stossel's article, showing that mutual aid societies were very common before FDR and built lots of things to help people. And as he says, private charities are less supported now because people have the attitude that they pay enough taxes so let the government take care of it. His article even documented how the goverment got in the way of private charity, and here's another example.
And as Walter Williams argues, the welfare system has done what slavery, racism and Jim Crow laws could not: destroy the black family.
As for those countries you mention, none of them have free markets and the rule of law, prerequisites for moving out of poverty. Stossel takes limousine liberal Bill Gates to task on this:
Gates faults the free market for problems caused by governments. What constricts the reach of the free market is the state. Gates seems oblivious to all the ways that governments here and abroad cripple enterprise. In poor countries, corrupt bureaucracies smother entrepreneurship while enriching cronies. The lack of formal property rights and stable law keeps average people from accumulating capital. So the poor stay poor. That's what causes "scarcity of clean water" and kills "children who die from diseases we can cure."
83. farmer Tom said the following at 7:12 PM on Feb 16:
56. Eliza,
I had no intention of being offensive, and if I was I apologize.
But, let me explain some facts of life you seem to be forgetting.
you said, "As for the church taking care of its members, yeah, that'd be nice if my father-in-law wasn't the richest member of his church for years. His tithe was essentially the pastor's salary. Upstate central NY is a down-and-out place. Everyone in their church is barely holding on themselves, let alone supporting another whole family."
I know of churches here in Iowa which are exactly as you describe. And praise God for men like your father-in-las who faithfully supported his local church.
But tell me something Eliza, when your father-in-law was "one of the richest men in the church" how much of his hard earning income was the government stealing from him each year? 25% 39% what percentage of the wage for his labor was stolen by the federal government?
If he had been able to keep another 25% of his paycheck for all of those years, would he have really needs a handout from the thieves when hard time came??
And futhermore, if he had tithed on the 25% would the church have had more money to use for charity?
See, we as a culture have become so ingrained with the notion that government is to provide welfare that we completely miss the point that government has nothing with which to do welfare, it must take it from someone else
We fail to realize that "The Power to Tax Is the Power to Destroy".
Your father-in-laws wealth was destroyed in part by the government taking the wages of his labor.
Now you in your desire to maintain that governments welfare system would have someone else's wealth destroyed, buy having them taxed to pay for the welfare system to continue.
84. Kelly said the following at 8:01 PM on Feb 16:
An example from my life:
All of my (younger) siblings have been married at ages 19, 21, 23 and the youngest is about to get married at 21. The 3 married couples all have young children. They all have very limited incomes, with the mothers staying at home and the fathers in low-income jobs (e.g. teaching).
So who helps them? Me (30, single, blessed with high earning power), and my parents (my Dad is still in the workforce). Okay, they don't live hand-to-mouth, but they certainly can't afford even a 2nd-hand car on their own.
I can't help but think that's the way it's supposed to be, and reading threads like this reminds me that I am So Blessed to have such a strong family, where we love and look out for each other.
85. composer girl said the following at 10:09 PM on Feb 16:
(#67):
We Americans need to get rid of our bad idioms. Saying that women are "not working" when they are not working a salaried job may be an idiom, but that doesn't mean it's a good one.
86. Kate (who applied to law school!) said the following at 11:05 PM on Feb 16:
72- No vaccinations? Really? Vaccinations save lives. The supposed link between autism and vaccinations has been disproved numerous times. It's bad science, period. Let me sort out my laundry tonight and I can provide a nice cited summary backing that up tomorrow.
If people don't vaccinate their children, we're going to see more outbreaks of disease, like the 2008 measles outbreak in San Diego. A child nearly died from that outbreak. And there is the greater question of previously eradicated diseases becoming common again.
I know I'm branching off on a tiny part of this whole conversion, but it's something I feel very strongly about.
Also, citations to follow, but I shouldn't even be online now, laundry and other boring adult chores call.
87. B.T.Carolus said the following at 12:58 AM on Feb 17:
Hannah C. (# 72)
So your family is part of the movement ruining our herd immunity?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26291109/
On the bed thing, just because you happened to grow up in a way that was different from the norm does not mean that the way you grew up was better, nor that the norm is worse. In general, a family should be able to provide each of its children with their own sleeping space (which a bed that is sized to fit two children does).
88. S said the following at 5:25 AM on Feb 17:
The fact of the matter is that, unfortunately, there are going to be times that individuals or families, through no fault of their own, are unable to care for themselves. It would be great if they had a church family that could take care of them, but that is not always the case. I'm greatful that there are government programs that can step in and fill the gap. There will always be people that are dishonest and take advantage of the situation, but that should not reflect on those who are in true need.
89. Tiffany said the following at 7:17 AM on Feb 17:
In Leah's response (#47) she writes:
"That means that there's nothing wrong with getting married later in life if you've simply not found a suitable spouse."
So there is something wrong with waiting to get married because you don't want to yet or because you're involved in some kind of ministry that doesn't lend itself well to marriage or for any other reason?
"It means there's nothing wrong with having children later in life if you've not been able to get married til then, or perhaps have had major financial or health issues."
Does this mean that there is something wrong with waiting to have kids while you pay off student loans or until you feel emotionally and spiritually ready?
"It means there's nothing wrong with only having 1, 2, or no kids if there's major health issues, or if you've tried and it's just not happening."
Does this mean there is something wrong with just having a few kids for any other reason?
"It means there's nothing wrong with Mum going back to work if Dad is incapacitated, or not present, or if they hit financial trouble that requires the extra income."
So Mom going back to work for any other reason is WRONG? You really feel comfortable making those kinds of judgments??
90. Keith said the following at 10:25 AM on Feb 17:
Government programs are responsible for promiscuity? I don't remember Jesus saying that promiscuity came from welfare; quite the opposite, he made it clear that sexual immorality comes from an impure heart....
Government programs help families going through economic hard times get back on thier feet. They provide stability that keeps families together. All of us need a helping hand from someone in our lives - From a friend, from a church, from a government, from a Saviour....
There is nothing wrong with taking government benefits when you need them, as long as you have paid your taxes fair and square. It's like insurance: If you pay your premiums faithfully, when you something bad happens, shouldn't you make a claim so you can get back on your feet?
91. Hannah C. said the following at 11:51 AM on Feb 17:
Kate (#86):
I don't have any scientific evidence; I haven't done enough research, since I won't be in a position to have kids for a couple of years. I just know my mother decided she'd take the risk of me getting the diseases (I had chicken pox and whooping cough, and I'm fine) rather than the risk of me dying of the vaccinations. I also know that she got that information from a sheet she was given by the doctor to sign before I could be vaccinated. This was in 1989; maybe that's changed. I've chosen not to get all the vaccinations I'm "supposed" to have because I don't want to put that much "hey make antibodies for something I don't actually have" stuff into my body in a limited amount of time, like I've been told I would have to do, unless I am actually going out of the country.
B.T. Carolus (#87):
Seeing as how at my high school, in a population of 3700 not including teachers, there were about 10 people who claimed immunization exemption if not less, I highly doubt my family has much to do with anything and can't be doing any harm. I'm not sure what it's like at my college.
If the kids are vaccinated already then they shouldn't get the disease. If they get it, then the vaccine didn't work. If there are unvaccinated children, that's a risk their parents are willing to take. I don't see why the government should be able to mandate any medical treatment for anyone. And for that reason alone, regardless of my status as a non-vaccinated person, mostly because of my parents, I'm glad Texas has philosophical and religious exemptions to taxation.
92. Kellie said the following at 11:57 AM on Feb 17:
I suppose what it comes down is that perhaps at the root of things, Boundless would be critical of my decision to date and marry my husband who was barely earning enough to support himself and continues to earn that same salary. Never mind that he is a wonderful Christian man and I can't imagine a man treating me better or loving me more. I suppose I should have looked at his paycheck and demanded better.
93. Ted Slater said the following at 12:04 PM on Feb 17:
Kellie (#92) -- no, we are not at all critical of your decision to date and marry your husband. We affirm your marriage to this wonderful Christian man.
I'm not sure where the misunderstanding has come from. I wonder how we could do better to communicate what we esteem....
94. Keisha said the following at 2:35 PM on Feb 17:
To Khalil:
Happy to clarify. I'm an economist, FWIW (we messed things up pretty bad in the last few years so I understand if my words carry less weight, ha ha!)...
You said:
"For a person (single parent) who has an income of $7,000/yr their federal tax bracket is 10%, giving them a tax burden of $700. The EITC for that person would be $2,8000 (40% of their income if they have two children). If used as a true CREDIT the EITC would cover the $700 of that person's tax burden, no more. But, the way that it appears to be in reality is that the remaining $2,100 would be given as a REFUND. Why is that person getting more money back than he or she paid? Sounds to me the government is giving away money."
There are three types of tax adjustments: deductions from taxable income, nonrefundable tax credits, and refundable tax credits. Credits are from tax liability - what you owe. Tax deductions, like the standard deduction, and the former credits are nonrefundable, which means that your tax liability can only be reduced to zero and you can't get any money back as a refund. The latter tax credits are refundable, so if your tax credit exceeds your tax liability, you get a refund from the gov't.
The EITC is designed to encourage work by supplementing earned income with a credit. So, the gov't tops off people's earned wages with an additional 40% (in a 2-kid household) up to $10,000. Yes, the gov't is giving people money that they didn't pay in taxes, but this wage top-off, rather than a fixed payment regardless of how much you work, is basically designed to make it more worthwhile to work a minimum-wage job rather than sitting at home not working and collecting state welfare.
As I cited before and you mentioned, when you earn above $10,000 the credit is reduced. However, the reduction is not such that you earn nothing at all by working more - you just earn less than dollar-for-dollar because you lose however many cents it is per extra dollar of income over $10K. This is something that's unavoidable... if you cut the payment to zero right at the $10K threshold, then everyone wants to earn exactly $10K and no more. If you don't cut payments at all, you have people getting a tax credit who already earn enough to live on.
Hope this helps... write back if you have any more Qs!
95. Christina (in green) said the following at 3:36 PM on Feb 17:
Ted (#93)
I've been trying to figure that out for quite some time now.
Sometimes, though, people will read what they want to and hear what they want to and not try to understand what the intention is.
Maybe less about the resulting effect and more about the sin that results in the effect?
Like selfishness and pride?
Oddly, reading Boundless has made me a bit more GRACEFUL towards mothers who work outside the home. Some attitudes still bug me - like the mom who works because she "likes to get away from them" or because she likes her big house and fancy car. And sometimes, there crops up a comment from a Boundless reader who exclaims that its because they want to and don't you dare tell them they are being selfish...cuz then it bugs me that they aren't even stopping to question their own intentions. I don't know if they have better ones than that but the sheer unwillingness to ask themselves that question irks me.
96. Hannah C. said the following at 5:36 PM on Feb 17:
Kellie (#92):
I've been reading Boundless for a little bit, and from what I've seen, just with articles and perhaps blog posts...I would think that Boundless would support you marrying, even if you're poor. Specifically, the article on when to get engaged from the series about relationships a little while back..which I apparently no longer have bookmarked...made the point that instead of waiting for circumstances to be perfect, it may be better to make circumstances fit your time frame. Which it seems to me would fit getting married earlier and being poor instead of getting married later and having more money...?
97. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 6:27 PM on Feb 17:
Keith (#90): you're unquestionably right abuot the ultimate source of promiscuity. But government programs in effect first encourage it with "values-free" sex ed in schools, then reward it financially by subsidizing kids born out of wedlock. This is the opposite of the role of government as per Romans 13.
As for government programs helping people get back on their feet, often they help keep them dependent.
reward it by are responsible for promiscuity? I don't remember Jesus saying that promiscuity came from welfare; quite the opposite, he made it clear that sexual immorality comes from an impure heart....
Government programs help families going through economic hard times get back on thier feet.
98. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 7:39 PM on Feb 17:
See 13-year-old father Alfie Patten: the exploited face of broken Britain.
James Delingpole argues cogently that current Britain is America's future, beginning with the election of a leftist charismatic young leader filling everyone with hope, and ending with impoverishment, crime, dependence on the nanny state, Orwellian political correctness and oppressive bureaucracies. Delingpole has written a book on this, Welcome to Obamaland: I Have Seen Your Future and It Doesn't Work, and is interviewed by Jed Babbin.
99. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. said the following at 8:09 PM on Feb 17:
Beth (#16) just repeats the typical leftist slogan that those who oppose bloated government welfare lack compassion for the poor. Of course, it's because we have compassion for the poor that we oppose confiscation of wealth from the productive to redistribute to the poor and keep them dependent, while the redistributors take their 75% cut.
Furthermore, Prof. Arthur Brooks shows in his book Who Really Cares that Christian conservatives are much more generous with their own money:
‘Religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly nonreligious charities. Religious people give more blood; religious people give more to homeless people on the street.’
See also Helping the needy—with Creation? Surprising research facts about who really helps the poor .
Contrast that with the current President with whom leftists (even many Christians) had a "slobbering love affair", who gave only 1% of his ample income to charity for many years? Biden gave only a fraction of a percent. For leftists, charity means spreading other people's wealth around.
100. Sherry said the following at 10:00 PM on Feb 17:
I just happened to come across this blog and I must say I am appalled at some of the comments. First of all, let me comment on the Octuplets mother. I think it is safe to say that if she had of aborted the babies then all of this hoopla would not be happening. Nobody would even give it a second thought. (And by the way, if FOCA is passed all of our "hard earned money" WILL be paying for abortions.) When she was implanted with the embryos only one or two were expected to survive, so obviously God has a plan for ALL of those precious babies. To even suggest that her children are taken from her is horrendous. Simply because some people don't agree with her choice to have her babies? Leave her and her babies alone!
Now, for my second comment. Yes, there are people who abuse our welfare system, but taking it completely away would only hurt the children who benefit from it. I myself have had to use the welfare system. When I became pregnant with our youngest daughter my husband was in the Marine Corps. Of course, we had medical coverage while he was in the service, but his tour of duty was up while I was only 7 months pregnant. It took ALOT of convincing from my parents before I agreed to apply for a medical card. Thank God that I did. I had an emergency C- section and we were in the hospital for 7 days due to complications. My surgery alone was $11,000.00. That does not include the doctors fee, my hospital stay, the anesthesiologist, and many other costs. My husband was working at the time, but for $5.00 an hour. Only a couple of months later my husband was working at a very good paying job. Over the past 20 years we have put back into the system what we had to use at the time of our daughters birth.