I get food stamps, and I’m not ashamed — I’m angry

[Toni]

Why should the taxes I pay subsidize people who make irresponsible choices to have children they can't afford any more than I already do through all the various tax breaks people with children already receive? I am talking deductions, EITC and the child tax credit, the latter two being "refundable" (i.e. they can result in refund being higher than withholding resulting in negative effective tax rate). All those tax breaks is something the writer of the OP article didn't mention.

The problem there is that he children didn't ask to be born, and by society not supporting them, we would be neglecting citizens in need, put there though no fault of their own. You may think that by not supporting these children through child tax credits and the like you may dissuade other parents from making poor decisions, but is it worth those children being neglected?

I have two friends and one former co-worker who were widowed when their husbands all died unexpectedly, between the ages of 35 and 40. They had between 2 and 4 children each. Two had degrees and good strong family support that often goes along with the solid middle class background that they grew up with. The other had no degree and no stable family who was willing or able to provide extra support when her husband died unexpectedly. By support, I don't mean just or even mostly money but help with children (all had very young families at the time), being around so that the surviving parent could go to work or the store or to an appointment without having to stress about finding and paying for a sitter, or help with heavy household duties that are usually handled by both people, etc.

My own family was fortunate that only one of my siblings was still in elementary school when my mother suffered a traumatic brain injury. She didn't die, but her hospital bills were enormous compared with our family resources--including very good health insurance. She was left disabled, so there were lots of other expenses and considerations, chief among them the permanent loss of a second income, or even the potential for one.

It really just takes a small twist of fate to take you from up and coming, stable, having all your shit together and then some to struggling to figure out how you will make ends meet.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It really just takes a small twist of fate to take you from up and coming, stable, having all your shit together and then some to struggling to figure out how you will make ends meet.

True. But that seems to be the exception rather than the rule. Quite often people know very well where they stand economically, what their education and potential for it is and what their expectations are. If these people know very well that they can not support children, yet still have them, that is a drain on the social safety net.... no longer really being used as a net.

 

[angelo]

And then you have the single mums who keep having babies to different fathers just to receive government benefits.

 

[DrZoidberg]

50% of pregnancies that occur in the US are unintended. Let's get this number down first before we worry about the people who willingly attempt to get pregnant without first having financial security to afford the child.

There should be no before on this. The same situation would be the outcome. The same medicine can be applied to each condition. Thinking about just what somebody intended can get you into real trouble. I have always felt that we as a society need to perfect inasmuch as possible contraception. In that aspect I am against there being any other than needed abortions. The unintentional pregnancy is the source of almost all abortions. Abortion opponents do themselves a great disservice when the also oppose contraception.

No, offence, but people who have worked on themselves and have their emotional life in good working order, get completely swept away by horniness and have all out passionate sex. People like that might not think of contraception each time they have sex. Add alcohol and drugs to that (neither of which are going away... and you have a problem). That's my opinion. People who have their full faculties operating when they're about to have sex are neurotic control freaks who need to work with a therapist. Because it's a problem. Until you do you'll never be able to experience sex like we're supposed to. It's passionate, hot, often violent and is amazing. And often leads to contraceptives being forgotten.

We will never reach 100% use of contraceptives. Not even close.

 

[Toni]

And then you have the single mums who keep having babies to different fathers just to receive government benefits.

Of course, all those single dads are totally blameless in all this. Why does no one suggest that the men get themselves sterilized so they quit creating kids they have no intention of supporting?

Don't people who believe whatever right wing trope is most convenient to let them off the hook for feeling even a tiny bit of compassion and to let them continue to believe that bad things will never happen to them.

 

[Toni]

It really just takes a small twist of fate to take you from up and coming, stable, having all your shit together and then some to struggling to figure out how you will make ends meet.

True. But that seems to be the exception rather than the rule. Quite often people know very well where they stand economically, what their education and potential for it is and what their expectations are. If these people know very well that they can not support children, yet still have them, that is a drain on the social safety net.... no longer really being used as a net.

And yet, with absolutely zero effort on my part, I came up with not one but FOUR of those little 'exceptions to the rule' from my own personal acquaintance and let's be frank: from my own life.

Thing became really tough for my family after my mother's brain injury. I shudder to think what would have happened if all of us kids had been even 5 years younger than we were. Actually, I have a pretty good idea. Both of my parents lost a parent when they were still in elementary school, something that plunged their families into deep poverty, despite the surviving parent working back breakingly hard and all the kids moving into independence at 18 or younger. That was during and just post Great Depression (so y'all can quit whining about the Great Recession). I know by only once removed what a total lack of compassion looks like.

 

[laughing dog]

And then you have the single mums who keep having babies to different fathers just to receive government benefits.

Really, what proportion of single mums receiving income support from the state "keep having babies to different fathers just to receive government benefits"?

 

[bilby]

And then you have the single mums who keep having babies to different fathers just to receive government benefits.

Really, what proportion of single mums receiving income support from the state "keep having babies to different fathers just to receive government benefits"?

Seriously?

None.

But it makes GREAT propaganda if you are ideologically opposed to welfare benefits.

 

[Playball40]

And then you have the single mums who keep having babies to different fathers just to receive government benefits.

Tell me you are joking and not perpetuating this ridiculous stereotype.

 

[Derec]

no longer really being used as a net.

No, it's being used as this:

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

And then you have the single mums who keep having babies to different fathers just to receive government benefits.

Do you really think anybody does that JUST for the government benefits??? Maybe to try to trap a man into staying with her and supporting her for the rest of her life, that I have seen, but just for the little government benefit? That makes no sense at all.

 

[Derec]

It's passionate, hot, often violent and is amazing. And often leads to contraceptives being forgotten.

And I do not see why the rest of us should be paying for your lack of responsibility.

 

[Derec]

Of course, all those single dads are totally blameless in all this. Why does no one suggest that the men get themselves sterilized so they quit creating kids they have no intention of supporting?

It's amazing how the feminist who think any notion to sterilize women against their will is misogynist have no qualms about sterilizing men.
The big difference is that it's the women who most often get these government benefits and child support for all those children they keep having. I.e. they are the ones benefiting financially from their large progeny, not the men.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

And yet, with absolutely zero effort on my part, I came up with not one but FOUR of those little 'exceptions to the rule' from my own personal acquaintance and let's be frank: from my own life.

Good for you, but you are ducking the point of what I was writing. I am not against this benefit. I am just suggesting that we may want to examine ways to discourage people who know they can't support large families from having large families, and requiring the rest of us to foot the bill for them so that they can. It reminds me of those exceptional cases Derec keeps bringing up where he says people are forced to pay child support for children they have nothing to do with. In such cases (if they exist), we should all pay as a group to support the kids. But quite often it could have been easily seen that those kids wouldn't have parental support and the situation could have been avoided.

 

[laughing dog]

Of course, all those single dads are totally blameless in all this. Why does no one suggest that the men get themselves sterilized so they quit creating kids they have no intention of supporting?

It's amazing how the feminist who think any notion to sterilize women against their will is misogynist have no qualms about sterilizing men.
The big difference is that it's the women who most often get these government benefits and child support for all those children they keep having. I.e. they are the ones benefiting financially from their large progeny, not the men.

You have offered no evidence whatsoever these women have a net benefit from their large progeny. None. Anyone who has raised children scoffs at your ridiculous claim. Raising children is demanding work (even doing it poorly) that literally does not end after an 8 hour day.

 

[Playball40]

It's amazing how the feminist who think any notion to sterilize women against their will is misogynist have no qualms about sterilizing men.
The big difference is that it's the women who most often get these government benefits and child support for all those children they keep having. I.e. they are the ones benefiting financially from their large progeny, not the men.

You have offered no evidence whatsoever these women have a net benefit from their large progeny. None. Anyone who has raised children scoffs at your ridiculous claim. Raising children is demanding work (even doing it poorly) that literally does not end after an 8 hour day.

Nor does it get you rich.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You have offered no evidence whatsoever these women have a net benefit from their large progeny. None. Anyone who has raised children scoffs at your ridiculous claim. Raising children is demanding work (even doing it poorly) that literally does not end after an 8 hour day.

It is very rewarding work, maybe not financially, but very rewarding work. That is why there are child custody battles and why people plan to have large families. It obviously is rewarding. Let's not pretend otherwise.

 

[prideandfall]

It's amazing how the feminist who think any notion to sterilize women against their will is misogynist have no qualms about sterilizing men.
The big difference is that it's the women who most often get these government benefits and child support for all those children they keep having. I.e. they are the ones benefiting financially from their large progeny, not the men.

reality isn't fair, derec - nut up and get over it.
men can get sterilized in an out-patient procedure that takes about 30 minutes, has full recovery within a couple of days, and is nearly 100% effective. it leaves virtually no scars, and is just as easily reversible.

all of NONE of those factors are true for female sterilization, so there is simply a biological and resource based gulf between the two genders in this situation.
not to mention that on average men have more partners than women, so if you look at it from a purely economics perspective it makes more financial sense to focus on men, since you're preventing more pregnancies per operation that way.

side bar derail:
getting snipped was the best thing i've ever done for myself - it's liberating, it's psychologically and emotionally reassuring and satisfying, and it's made every day of my life better since i had it done.
seriously, every man should get a vasectomy, they're the best.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I've got to get in to have it done.

 

[prideandfall]

I've got to get in to have it done.

from the time i walked into the clinic until i was done and walking to my car to drive home was seriously like 35 minutes - it took less time to get my man gravy diluted than it did to renew my driver's license.