Somebody Needs to Be Held Accountable! (Why Not Married?)

[Phatscotty]

Ah, how easy it is to condemn others who are in a bad situation, when you're one of the NightScotties of the world who live in a bubble where they've never had to endure any hardship at all.

I'd love to see NightScotty try to work a job that pays well enough to support 13 people while simultaneously taking care of 12 children.

Just go ahead and tell us about the "hardships" this woman has endured? Getting your house and furniture and food and clothes all paid for.......the only hardship she seems to have had was not being able to maintain her free shelter. I hardly think you know what a hardship is. Only an independent person can experience hardship. A dependent person who senses hardship just hands their problems to other people, creating a hardship on everyone else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcZTtlGweQ&t=0m09s

[PLAYER57832]

Ah, how easy it is to condemn others who are in a bad situation, when you're one of the NightScotties of the world who live in a bubble where they've never had to endure any hardship at all.

I'd love to see NightScotty try to work a job that pays well enough to support 13 people while simultaneously taking care of 12 children.

Just go ahead and tell us about the "hardships" this woman has endured? Getting your house and furniture and food and clothes all paid for.......the only hardship she seems to have had was not being able to maintain her free shelter. I hardly think you know what a hardship is. Only an independent person can experience hardship. A dependent person who senses hardship just hands their problems to other people, creating a hardship on everyone else.

You make it clear you have no idea what it is to care for multiple children even WITH a stable home, and definitely not doing so without a home.


This woman is obviously in over her head. Except, its not her that will pay, it is her kids... and then the rest of us who have to deal with them. So, you can either sit on your high horse and point fingers, or do things to help. By "help" I mean bring in the education, support (counseling, parenting classes) and yes, some actual assistance because, as many have noted, getting a house or apartment that will allow 12 kids, never mind one within a limited budget is almost impossible without help. Yet, those are all systems that your so wonderful "budget cutters" seem to perfectly OK slashing so they can keep offering tax breaks to billionaires and huge corporations.

[natty dread]

I hardly think you know what a hardship is.

I'm not going to recount the story of my life here, I don't want to fish for sympathy or shit like that, but I can assure you you're pretty much speaking out of your arsehole.

Only an independent person can experience hardship.

Well get a load of this. Scotty, the tought police. You're seriously telling people that unless they meet your criteria for "independence" their experiences are not valid? That they cannot experience any hardship or suffering if they ever accept help from anyone? What a load of bullshit.

A dependent person who senses hardship just hands their problems to other people, creating a hardship on everyone else.

That's such a low, despicable way of thinking about your fellow humans. It's so fucking immoral and utterly lacking of compassion that I wonder if you've ever seen real life from inside that bubble of yours.

In the real world, people need help sometimes. No one in this world can survive independently. This ideal "independent person" you speak of doesn't exist. Maybe it's your upbringing, maybe you were raised by a strict father who wanted to make a "real man" out of you, one who never asks directions when he's lost, who doesn't cry in public... one who bears all his burdens himself and never bothers other people with them. But that's not strength, nor independence... that's just fucking moronic. We're not in the stone age anymore. Fuck, even in the stone age people needed other people to survive.

Sometimes, people make mistakes, and sometimes they need the help of others to get up. We all make mistakes, but only the idiots among us judge those less fortunate than them... the rest of us, the ones with some basic human decency, try to help others when they're down... not push them further down.

[PLAYER57832]

A dependent person who senses hardship just hands their problems to other people, creating a hardship on everyone else.

By your definition, no child has any right to even live.

And, mind you.. there are cultures that think pretty close to that. Never thought it was common here in the US, though.


Oh, and if you can name ONE person who truly lives indepedent of others, then you are looking at someone who is insane.

[Night Strike]

natty, I think you fail to see what is going on with this woman. It's fine that people in the real world need help sometimes. SHE IS GETTING THAT HELP ALREADY! But instead of being grateful for that help and doing her own work to make the rest of the ends meet, she's demanding that everybody else give her even more.

When people need help, they should be going to friends and family or a charity to give them assistance. We shouldn't have people who perpetually live off of the government instead of working. Our society is very much becoming one completely dependent on the government for every little thing instead of working for your own needs.

[Johnny Rockets]

On one side you have Natty-Player defending the concepts of charity and how they should be woven into our societies culture. Something I agree with.

On the other side you have Phat-Strike demanding accountability and personal responsibility from this individual who is a drain on a system set up to help families, not support them.
Something I also agree with.

After twelve kids, this woman obviously cannot make good choices for her and her whelps.
So let's remove them from the home to ensure that they have a much better future in store for them than being raised by this woman who will teach them nothing but reliance on others.

Then lets sterilize her so that God won't be stuffing any more gifts up her chimney from via his ex-felon delivery elves. Give her a job as a wall-mart greeter, and BAM!!! Everyone's Happy!


Seriously. This bullshit will continue forever as long as we support the ideology that everyone has the right to squirt out a litter of kids. Raising children is the most important job on the planet. Not everyone is suited to do it. The amount of requirements to obtain an occupancy permit for a business, to get a drivers license, a liquor license, or the hoops of bureaucratic tangles needed to OPEN A DAYCARE, ensure that whatever I am doing to provide a service to my community will be done properly and to a set standard.
However it is my right to bring a child into this world without any minimum of education, or fiscal ability, and with as many addictions as I might have. I can raise my children in filthy squalor, in cramped conditions, without proper nutrition and positive social interaction. I can perpetuate the cycle of poverty and cause endless suffering to my own children, robbing them of any potential success and happiness because THAT'S MY GAWDAMMED RIGHT.

You preach about the rights of the mother. No one questions whether the Mother should be one at all. You want so offer more supports for an unsupportable situation.

Change the god-dammed situation. Remove Mommy dearest from the equation and get those kids into some decent foster care.

Johnny Rockets

[AAFitz]

natty, I think you fail to see what is going on with this woman. It's fine that people in the real world need help sometimes. SHE IS GETTING THAT HELP ALREADY! But instead of being grateful for that help and doing her own work to make the rest of the ends meet, she's demanding that everybody else give her even more.

When people need help, they should be going to friends and family or a charity to give them assistance. We shouldn't have people who perpetually live off of the government instead of working. Our society is very much becoming one completely dependent on the government for every little thing instead of working for your own needs.

I do agree that the massive corporations going to the government for billions of dollars in grants, tax breaks and outright gifts, have very much eroded our society.

I also fully agree that much, much better systems should be in place to keep people from taking advantage of the welfare and social programs that have been set up to essentially, help children who really need it.

I think since welfare does however make up only 15% of the budget, and that one could probably guess if not hope, that the actual abuse is perhaps as low as 5% of that, or maybe even as high as 20% of that, then maybe, our efforts could be devoted to worrying about the waste at the higher levels, and which actually affect the economy and have really eroded our great nation.

If the corruption and fraud are actually addressed at the higher levels, the entire welfare system would simply need less regardless of the waste. With a good government of course, the waste and corruption could be dealt with and managed simultaneously.

I for one, am far more outraged, when an oil company gets a grant and a tax break, which benefits maybe .01% of the population, than I am when I kid might get to live a slightly better life, when without such programs, they certainly would be forced to live a life that we as a society, should just not allow for a child.

I admit that my christian values affect this thought process, and I apologize for it, but I simply feel the values are worth following.

I am also intelligent enough to realize that the welfare system is not hardly the reason for our current economic state, and feel it is so little a part of it, as to be almost meaningless as a point of discussion for making a real change to improve our country.

What we need, is to improve the economy, and make the economy better for everyone in general, and even killing the poor or taking every single dollar they have, would not improve the economy in any meaningful way. It would in fact make it worse.

The problem is that all of the resources are simply out of the economy, because those with those resources have bribed those in power to gain even more of them. The money is not all trapped in the hands of the poor. Every dollar they spend ends up in the economy anyways, and actually could be said to stimulate the economy. The problem is that the vast majority of the resources have been accumulated, and many times illegally and certainly corruptly, and the accounting that will really help everyone, and I mean everyone, especially those who have misidentified their location on the economic ladder, is on the other end of the equation.

When investigating a crime, follow the money. It is as simple as that.

[natty dread]

Yeah, we should really limit procreation somehow. Better sex education, less religious beliefs that command you to fill the earth with your spawn, better support for adoption, etc. I'm all for that.

However, the means for doing so aren't simple, there are no easy answers for the equation... once the kids are already born, the cat is out of the bag and the milk is spilt... they need to be taken care of. And most of the time, it's both cheaper to society and better for the children to support the mother and let the kids live with their mother, than to push them over to foster care.

I don't particularly like people who consider it their "god-given right" to create a litter of kids. It is really selfish and irresponsible. I just don't think punishing them after the fact is a constructive way to address the problem, particularly when such measures would hurt the children most. Furthermore, we all make shitty choices sometimes. We all do stupid things. That's why education is important, people should receive good education so they'd be less likely to make such stupid things later on.

So, ok, there's a woman with 12 kids, and we all like to point fingers and say how she shouldn't procreate so irresponsibly. But let's look a bit further ahead: if her kids would receive proper care and a good education, maybe they in turn won't procreate so irresponsibly when they grow up.

[jimboston]

I like how all these guys are up in arms over this one crazy lady and her dozen kids needing assistance, but would be equally as outraged (if not more) if she had wanted to legally abort those kids before they became mouths to feed.

This bears repeating.

This bears repeating... but it's not true.

I don't want to pay for her bastards... AND I am fine if she aborts them.

So um... you're WRONG Dave.

If you're hard up bro, PM me your address and I'll remunerate you to the tune of a thousandth of a cent or so that was taxed from you and spent contributing to her existence.

If you need help just ask.

If there was only one woman like this in the country... and my total tax expenditure for this type of shit was say less than a dollar a year... then I wouldn't give a f*ck.

The problem is that she is just one example of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people on the public dole.

You prepared to reimburse me for all of it???

Oh and BTW... that's a dumb promise... since you have no clue what I earn, and hence no clue what I pay in taxes. For all you know my tax burden related to social services, like what goes to this woman, could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

So... um... learn math.

[Aradhus]

You said you didn't want to pay for her bastards, that's what I was responding to, your complaint about her specifically. So.. um.. learn how to read bro.


Wappow.

[jimboston]

You said you didn't want to pay for her bastards, that's what I was responding to, your complaint about her specifically. So.. um.. learn how to read bro.


Wappow.

Clearly she is being presented as an example of the problems with the system.

You're right... I don't wanna pay for her bastards. Nor do I want to pay for anyone's bastards (but my own if I am ever legally proven to have any).

Wappow / Deflected

ass

[Aradhus]

Jim 'you suck'

Arad 'you're wrong'

Jim 'true, but..'

Nicely deflected indeed.

Also,

WAH Welfare WAH WAH

A little bit louder, sir, JUST A LITTLE BIT LOUDER!

[Lootifer]

Yeah, we should really limit procreation somehow. Better sex education, less religious beliefs that command you to fill the earth with your spawn, better support for adoption, etc. I'm all for that.

However, the means for doing so aren't simple, there are no easy answers for the equation... once the kids are already born, the cat is out of the bag and the milk is spilt... they need to be taken care of. And most of the time, it's both cheaper to society and better for the children to support the mother and let the kids live with their mother, than to push them over to foster care.

I don't particularly like people who consider it their "god-given right" to create a litter of kids. It is really selfish and irresponsible. I just don't think punishing them after the fact is a constructive way to address the problem, particularly when such measures would hurt the children most. Furthermore, we all make shitty choices sometimes. We all do stupid things. That's why education is important, people should receive good education so they'd be less likely to make such stupid things later on.

So, ok, there's a woman with 12 kids, and we all like to point fingers and say how she shouldn't procreate so irresponsibly. But let's look a bit further ahead: if her kids would receive proper care and a good education, maybe they in turn won't procreate so irresponsibly when they grow up.

HOW DARE YOU THINK PROACTIVELY, GTFO NOW!!!

REACTIVE 4 LYFE

[PLAYER57832]

.

You preach about the rights of the mother. No one questions whether the Mother should be one at all. You want so offer more supports for an unsupportable situation.

I actually agree, esoterically. However, the problem is that removing these kids means pushing them onto an already over-burdoned foster care system. The truth is that it is far more cost effective to help parents to be better parents than it is to remove kids.

That said, this could be one of the situations that is just unsalvagable. Not becuase she has 12 kids ( This is the south, sometimes even birth control can be problematic, never mind an abortion can be problematic), but because they were already removed twice. However, that they were remanded to her again tends to support her argument that she was promised more help than she recieved. things like counseling and perhaps more material support.

The REAL answer here is just the opposit of what is being done and what the Phattscotty's and Nightstrikes have supported, do support.. namely, we need to have REAL sex education in schools, REAL supports for young parents, things like parenting classes and the like. AND we need to make education much more of a real option for young women. Too many churches give lip service to preventing teen pregnancy, but in reality glorify "woman as mothers" to such an extent that many women feel it is far better to just go and get pregnant than to take the harder road of going to college and perhaps not "finding someone". To them, the terrible fate is not having 5 kids, unwed, its being a "spinster". Unless and until that attitude changes, this will continue to happen. AND .. for the religiuos right to claim they are not contributing to that attitude is yet another of the major hypocrisies of their views.

[PLAYER57832]

I like how all these guys are up in arms over this one crazy lady and her dozen kids needing assistance, but would be equally as outraged (if not more) if she had wanted to legally abort those kids before they became mouths to feed.

This bears repeating.

This bears repeating... but it's not true.

I don't want to pay for her bastards... AND I am fine if she aborts them.

So um... you're WRONG Dave.

If you're hard up bro, PM me your address and I'll remunerate you to the tune of a thousandth of a cent or so that was taxed from you and spent contributing to her existence.

If you need help just ask.

If there was only one woman like this in the country... and my total tax expenditure for this type of shit was say less than a dollar a year... then I wouldn't give a f*ck.

The problem is that she is just one example of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people on the public dole.

You got data supporting your premise that people on welfare are largely like his woman?

Or do you even get how much reduction in funding for education and social services.. the very things you have also said are "not your responsibility" lead directly to this end? Becuase, if you did... your tune would change.

Oh and BTW... that's a dumb promise... since you have no clue what I earn, and hence no clue what I pay in taxes. For all you know my tax burden related to social services, like what goes to this woman, could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

So... um... learn math.

No, it could not. NO ONE's individual social service burden amounts to hundreds of thousands of dollars. The social service portion of the tax burden is just too low.

[Phatscotty]

Ah, how easy it is to condemn others who are in a bad situation, when you're one of the NightScotties of the world who live in a bubble where they've never had to endure any hardship at all.

I'd love to see NightScotty try to work a job that pays well enough to support 13 people while simultaneously taking care of 12 children.

Just go ahead and tell us about the "hardships" this woman has endured? Getting your house and furniture and food and clothes all paid for.......the only hardship she seems to have had was not being able to maintain her free shelter. I hardly think you know what a hardship is. Only an independent person can experience hardship. A dependent person who senses hardship just hands their problems to other people, creating a hardship on everyone else.

You make it clear you have no idea what it is to care for multiple children even WITH a stable home, and definitely not doing so without a home.


This woman is obviously in over her head. Except, its not her that will pay, it is her kids... and then the rest of us who have to deal with them. So, you can either sit on your high horse and point fingers, or do things to help. By "help" I mean bring in the education, support (counseling, parenting classes) and yes, some actual assistance because, as many have noted, getting a house or apartment that will allow 12 kids, never mind one within a limited budget is almost impossible without help. Yet, those are all systems that your so wonderful "budget cutters" seem to perfectly OK slashing so they can keep offering tax breaks to billionaires and huge corporations.

I do have an idea on how to maintain the roof over my children's heads, especially if it's free.

This woman is in over her head, and the entitlement mentality encouraged it every step of the way. It's no different from the bank bailouts (HERE WE GO!) The banks knew the government would bail them out, so they took more risk than they would have without that "safety net". This is my whole point here. It's just worse because this woman is saying with a straight face that "other people need to pay" and "someone needs to be held accountable". I say look in the mirror to the woman.

Moral hazard

[Phatscotty]

natty, I think you fail to see what is going on with this woman. It's fine that people in the real world need help sometimes. SHE IS GETTING THAT HELP ALREADY! But instead of being grateful for that help and doing her own work to make the rest of the ends meet, she's demanding that everybody else give her even more.

When people need help, they should be going to friends and family or a charity to give them assistance. We shouldn't have people who perpetually live off of the government instead of working. Our society is very much becoming one completely dependent on the government for every little thing instead of working for your own needs.

I do agree that the massive corporations going to the government for billions of dollars in grants, tax breaks and outright gifts, have very much eroded our society.

I also fully agree that much, much better systems should be in place to keep people from taking advantage of the welfare and social programs that have been set up to essentially, help children who really need it.

I think since welfare does however make up only 15% of the budget, and that one could probably guess if not hope, that the actual abuse is perhaps as low as 5% of that, or maybe even as high as 20% of that, then maybe, our efforts could be devoted to worrying about the waste at the higher levels, and which actually affect the economy and have really eroded our great nation.

If the corruption and fraud are actually addressed at the higher levels, the entire welfare system would simply need less regardless of the waste. With a good government of course, the waste and corruption could be dealt with and managed simultaneously.

I for one, am far more outraged, when an oil company gets a grant and a tax break, which benefits maybe .01% of the population, than I am when I kid might get to live a slightly better life, when without such programs, they certainly would be forced to live a life that we as a society, should just not allow for a child.

I admit that my christian values affect this thought process, and I apologize for it, but I simply feel the values are worth following.

I am also intelligent enough to realize that the welfare system is not hardly the reason for our current economic state, and feel it is so little a part of it, as to be almost meaningless as a point of discussion for making a real change to improve our country.

What we need, is to improve the economy, and make the economy better for everyone in general, and even killing the poor or taking every single dollar they have, would not improve the economy in any meaningful way. It would in fact make it worse.

The problem is that all of the resources are simply out of the economy, because those with those resources have bribed those in power to gain even more of them. The money is not all trapped in the hands of the poor. Every dollar they spend ends up in the economy anyways, and actually could be said to stimulate the economy. The problem is that the vast majority of the resources have been accumulated, and many times illegally and certainly corruptly, and the accounting that will really help everyone, and I mean everyone, especially those who have misidentified their location on the economic ladder, is on the other end of the equation.

When investigating a crime, follow the money. It is as simple as that.

I think everyone agrees with most of this. We only run into problems when we start comparing fraud and waste and entitlement and privileges. They all need to go, equally.

[Lootifer]

You know human rights actually mentions that people ARE entitled to things like shelter, food, water, warmth, etc etc right?

[PLAYER57832]

Ah, how easy it is to condemn others who are in a bad situation, when you're one of the NightScotties of the world who live in a bubble where they've never had to endure any hardship at all.

I'd love to see NightScotty try to work a job that pays well enough to support 13 people while simultaneously taking care of 12 children.

Just go ahead and tell us about the "hardships" this woman has endured? Getting your house and furniture and food and clothes all paid for.......the only hardship she seems to have had was not being able to maintain her free shelter. I hardly think you know what a hardship is. Only an independent person can experience hardship. A dependent person who senses hardship just hands their problems to other people, creating a hardship on everyone else.

You make it clear you have no idea what it is to care for multiple children even WITH a stable home, and definitely not doing so without a home.


This woman is obviously in over her head. Except, its not her that will pay, it is her kids... and then the rest of us who have to deal with them. So, you can either sit on your high horse and point fingers, or do things to help. By "help" I mean bring in the education, support (counseling, parenting classes) and yes, some actual assistance because, as many have noted, getting a house or apartment that will allow 12 kids, never mind one within a limited budget is almost impossible without help. Yet, those are all systems that your so wonderful "budget cutters" seem to perfectly OK slashing so they can keep offering tax breaks to billionaires and huge corporations.

I do have an idea on how to maintain the roof over my children's heads, especially if it's free.

LOL.. and you know what it is to live in a motel with 12 kids, too?

We had to do that for just a week when our plumbing broke. Trying to go to work, shepard kids to school, live anything like a real life, etc. is quite different from being on vacation, believe me!

This woman is in over her head, and the entitlement mentality encouraged it every step of the way. It's no different from the bank bailouts (HERE WE GO!) The banks knew the government would bail them out, so they took more risk than they would have without that "safety net". This is my whole point here. It's just worse because this woman is saying with a straight face that "other people need to pay" and "someone needs to be held accountable". I say look in the mirror to the woman.

Moral hazard

Except, the problem with your analogy is that bankers GOT a good education, tax breaks, etc. This woman and her kids got none of that. If they woman had gotten a decent education, she would not be where she was. If she even attended a real sex education class, she likely would not be where she is.

Also, that "psycology of dependence" is very much the right wing view of "what women are supposed to be". It is the 1950's idea that a woman's job is to stay home and tend her kids. You look around down south. Those women with 5 kids from 5 fathers are "normal" compared to the single, working women who fend for themselves.. particularly if they are childless and over 30.. actually make that over 25.

As I said above, this fact is it is far more cost-effective to pay this woman to take care of her kids. BUT, it should not be a free gift. She should be required to go through and PASS parenting classes. She should be required to go through job training, even knowing its unlikely she could get a job that would truly allow her to support 12 kids. Etc.

The fact is, the more you educate women, the less likely they are to be in this woman's situation. But.. education is the thing taking some of the biggest hits right now. Not so long ago you were decrying additional funding for education with the argument that "more money won't fix the problem". Except.. often, money very much does fix a lot of problems.

BUT... those are things you are also against. You cannot have it both ways.

[Phatscotty]

You know human rights actually mentions that people ARE entitled to things like shelter, food, water, warmth, etc etc right?

you know your definition of human rights infringes the shit out of peoples individual rights and property rights and chances for opportunity right?

Guess there will have to be a fight.

Good Luck!

[Lootifer]

You know human rights actually mentions that people ARE entitled to things like shelter, food, water, warmth, etc etc right?

you know your definition of human rights infringes the shit out of peoples individual rights and property rights and chances for opportunity right?

Guess there will have to be a fight.

Good Luck!

Explain a couple of things for me Scotty (referencing individual rights, property rights and chances for opportunity rights):

Introduction: This 10% additional tax I describe below is to be used specifically for providing a better public education system.

- How would you personally be affected by a flat 10% increase in tax to the top 50% highest earners/wealthiest people (using the OECD adjusted household disposable income deifinition)?

- How would the woman in the OP article be affected by a flat 10% increase in tax to the top 50% highest earners/wealthiest people (using the OECD adjusted household disposable income deifinition)?

- How would the womans children in the OP article be affected by a flat 10% increase in tax to the top 50% highest earners/wealthiest people (using the OECD adjusted household disposable income deifinition)?

- How would the 49th percentile wage earner be affected by a flat 10% increase in tax to the top 50% highest earners/wealthiest people (using the OECD adjusted household disposable income deifinition)?

- How would the 51st percentile wage eaner be affected by a flat 10% increase in tax to the top 50% highest earners/wealthiest people (using the OECD adjusted household disposable income deifinition)?

- How would the the top 1% wage earners be affected by a flat 10% increase in tax to the top 50% highest earners/wealthiest people (using the OECD adjusted household disposable income deifinition)?

Remember to link it all back to rights; I am especially interested on what you think the impact will be on the lower earners opportunity rights.

[Army of GOD]

On one side you have Natty-Player defending the concepts of charity and how they should be woven into our societies culture. Something I agree with.

On the other side you have Phat-Strike demanding accountability and personal responsibility from this individual who is a drain on a system set up to help families, not support them.
Something I also agree with.

After twelve kids, this woman obviously cannot make good choices for her and her whelps.
So let's remove them from the home to ensure that they have a much better future in store for them than being raised by this woman who will teach them nothing but reliance on others.

Then lets sterilize her so that God won't be stuffing any more gifts up her chimney from via his ex-felon delivery elves. Give her a job as a wall-mart greeter, and BAM!!! Everyone's Happy!


Seriously. This bullshit will continue forever as long as we support the ideology that everyone has the right to squirt out a litter of kids. Raising children is the most important job on the planet. Not everyone is suited to do it. The amount of requirements to obtain an occupancy permit for a business, to get a drivers license, a liquor license, or the hoops of bureaucratic tangles needed to OPEN A DAYCARE, ensure that whatever I am doing to provide a service to my community will be done properly and to a set standard.
However it is my right to bring a child into this world without any minimum of education, or fiscal ability, and with as many addictions as I might have. I can raise my children in filthy squalor, in cramped conditions, without proper nutrition and positive social interaction. I can perpetuate the cycle of poverty and cause endless suffering to my own children, robbing them of any potential success and happiness because THAT'S MY GAWDAMMED RIGHT.

You preach about the rights of the mother. No one questions whether the Mother should be one at all. You want so offer more supports for an unsupportable situation.

Change the god-dammed situation. Remove Mommy dearest from the equation and get those kids into some decent foster care.

Johnny Rockets

My thoughts exactly.

[BigBallinStalin]

Yeah, we should really limit procreation somehow. Better sex education, less religious beliefs that command you to fill the earth with your spawn, better support for adoption, etc. I'm all for that.

However, the means for doing so aren't simple, there are no easy answers for the equation... once the kids are already born, the cat is out of the bag and the milk is spilt... they need to be taken care of. And most of the time, it's both cheaper to society and better for the children to support the mother and let the kids live with their mother, than to push them over to foster care.

I don't particularly like people who consider it their "god-given right" to create a litter of kids. It is really selfish and irresponsible. I just don't think punishing them after the fact is a constructive way to address the problem, particularly when such measures would hurt the children most. Furthermore, we all make shitty choices sometimes. We all do stupid things. That's why education is important, people should receive good education so they'd be less likely to make such stupid things later on.

So, ok, there's a woman with 12 kids, and we all like to point fingers and say how she shouldn't procreate so irresponsibly. But let's look a bit further ahead: if her kids would receive proper care and a good education, maybe they in turn won't procreate so irresponsibly when they grow up.

The government creates the strong incentive for very poor people to continuously procreate. Essentially, welfare services (like medicare and medicaid, and subsidies within the tax code) reward people who earn very little for producing more kids. People tend to be geared toward thinking in the short-term, so they'll discount the long-term costs of raising kids in exchange for the immediate tax credits and services received by the government.

It's a smart strategy (for the financially strapped recipient) because they simply don't incur the dispersed costs of their own decisions. The outcome is a higher social cost to all taxpayers.

Of course, IF "her kids would receive proper care and a good education," then none of this would matter; however, that's a strong if, and it's assuming that the government can provide an education which the market demands, and that assumes that the demand for labor actually exists, or is high enough to accommodate the influx. Your assumption is based on the nirvana fallacy, i.e. the government is perfect, it's capable of reversing the trends of poverty and providing equal opportunity to everyone.

The truth is that it isn't perfect and although in the past the returns for such investments (in education and health) were significantly higher, today government spending in well developed countries faces much higher diminishing returns with ever-increasing costs on the taxpayers. In my opinion, the marginal costs of government spending on social welfare have surpassed the marginal benefits decades ago.

In other words, the calls for increased government spending are no longer justified. The US government is over $14 in public debt, and has over $50 trillion in unfunded obligations. That's insane. Furthermore, since the USG incurs an annual budget deficit of about $300 billion per year, it must borrow or print money in order to continue its spending. With consumer debt dangerously high, real economic growth so low, high inflation (roughly 6%) on the rise, decreased US dollar purchasing power (relative to Chinese yuan, Yen, Euro, Swiss Fr., etc.), and with no good means of escaping this dilemma (sorry, but the US can't tax its people enough to prevent these future problems), it's only a matter of time until foreign investors get wise and drop the US dollar and investments in US treasuries.

In my opinion people should be outraged at stories in the OP, but they should also be outraged at most of the government spending. Any appeals to the government to remedy these situations is laughable. The train for benefits from government spending has left a long time ago. Now, it's just a matter of watching the magic show of public policy prolonging and exacerbating recessions until the circus tent collapses and smothers everyone inside.

[Army of GOD]

You know human rights actually mentions that people ARE entitled to things like shelter, food, water, warmth, etc etc right?

Hold on. Is there a document called "human rights" that goes over actual human rights? If so, why haven't I heard of it?

[BigBallinStalin]

You know human rights actually mentions that people ARE entitled to things like shelter, food, water, warmth, etc etc right?

Right. Let's use this to justify the government indirectly providing people of poor credit ratings with a house and see how that turns out...

Why not set wages and quotas on the production of food with the good intention of providing everyone what they're entitled? During times of rationing, it works so well! Never mind that the producers shuffle costs to consumers by reducing quality!


We can see after the fact how good intentions lead to bad outcomes, but that doesn't matter because people will continue viewing the government as a capable, positive force of change. Why? Because it's difficult to see how the government changes the underlying rules of the game and has the strong incentive to shift blame on "the free market." It's all so cute!

Honestly, I'm just upset that New Zealand has such lush greenery while I get to live next to a swamp.