Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Stuff

Have the buttons and buttonholes left to do on the little girl's navy dress. Of course my serger would decide to screw up when I was serging on the Wendy dress, throwing me back a couple days. Of course. Lovely. Well, that's where French seams come into play. They take about three times as long as serging, but look nicer.

Last week or so, there was the woman who questioned if WIC was a worthwhile program when it wouldn't pay for her preferred organic milk and organic brie cheese. This time someone asked:

is it irresponsible to have more kids?
When we can't afford health insurance for the one we have and have to have her on Medicaid?

When we have had foodstamps in the past year and only don't have them now because we made too much money in the past month(by $63, lol)...

????


Throughout this thread of almost 300 replies (and counting), and from other posts, it turns out she's a long-term welfare recipient receiving full benefits (section 8, Medicaid, etc.), but feels it's within her right to have as many kids as she wants, regardless of who pays.

Some other such stupid comments (not all from that poster:

money is a bad reason to do or not do things in general, i believe.


Oh really? So you'd go out to a fancy dinner and not let not having the money stop you because money is a bad reason to not do something?

I say if you want a baby, have a baby. It's your life and so long as you're not intentionally screwing over someone else to have another child, then go for it.


Oh. Good to know it's not screwing over the workers who pay thousands a year into the system for these people. It's not like working families have to do without basics often so that these people can have everything (some states are even passing out cell phones now to welfare recipients).

Except it IS screwing people over. Many working families could desperately use the money they're paying for able-bodied adults who refuse to work because they want more kids without supporting the ones they have. Many working families can't see doctors, and worry about paying the power bill and heating in winter, because they're having to financially support the kids of people who have them planning from the start to not support them.

, I'd gleefully live on welfare, foodstamps, WIC or whatever else I'd have to do to have one of them. And I wouldn't give a damn what any one on this thread, in this city, or on this planet thought about about it.

As far as I'm concerned, if you can feed him or her and keep him or her from freezing to death, you know in your heart that you'd never neglect or harm your child and you can provide the love and care that s/he deserves, don't let a soul tell you that you don't deserve every single child that God (or whatever higher power that you believe in) has to give you.


"if you can feed him or her..."...except this "you" is not. The taxpayers are. But clearly this person has no problem taking everything she could get, going by the first paragraph.

This comment was followed by a lot of support and people cheering her on.

There are a lot more comments like these, and a lot of support for those saying it's just fine to have kids and let others foot the bill. But I can't access the page now, probably banned by IP for the two comments I did make that were hella harsh, straight-up calling it selfish to conceive a baby with the sole plan for financial support from the get-go being to just go on welfare and make others pay, and saying that if workers have no choice about paying the financial support for the children abled people choose to have without intending to pay for them, then those people should be forced to work, even if it's making gravel. If you're of sound body and mind and choose to have kids, then not working at all, not even trying to get a job shouldn't be an option just because there are others who are working and paying taxes to force to pay up instead.

This is VERY different, however from someone who has kids when supporting them, then come upon hard times, lay-off, illness, etc., and need temporary assistance. That is what aid is supposed to be for. Aid isn't suppose to be used as a means from the start of long-term support. The first is genuine temporary need, and the second is created need that was entirely within the recipient's control.


Here is some common sense:

I guess I find it unfair that someone elses desires to have a child can be fullfilled because my taxes pay for it, yet I can't have that extra child because we can't afford it. That doesn't mean I don't support very temporary social programs, but I do not like the idea that anyone have access to aide and plan on using it when they are making the decision to have more kids or not. Social programs are supposed to be there for people who need it due to the current and temporary circumstances that arise out of things like illness, disability, marital changes or major employment changes. Not because people want to have kids added to a situation that can't support the current ones.


I agree. Cody and I wouldn't have conceived Charlotte if we weren't in a place financially at that time to be able to support her. We wouldn't have conceived her if we anticipated this rough patch we are in right now. We still haven't accepted a penny of aid, nor have we applied. It boggles my mind that people will intentionally conceive children without a plan to support them aside from taxpayer money.

I have known families in this poster's position, wanting another child, but unable to support another, so not having another. It's some sort of cruel irony that many working families could afford a/another child...if they didn't have to pay the financial support for people who have them without planning to support them.


I find it incredible how many people don't think people like this exist, the people who are perfectly happy to sit on welfare as long as possible. In that thread there are even some people who talk about how they make sure to keep income below a certain level by working part time to make sure their welfare isn't decreased. If welfare/section 8/food stamps/etc. benefits are really so paltry, then why are people only too happy to live on it as long as possible, to even go out of their way to make sure to stay on it?

How much longer can the economy really continue to support people who are unemployed BY CHOICE and keep punching out kids? When economic times are tough, there are fewer people working and more people receiving aid, fewer workers having to pay more to support more people. I'm not begrudging those with a genuine temporary need that wasn't their own causing. I AM begrudging those who create their own need and then stand there with their hands out and who don't plan to become contributing members of society until left with absolutely no other choice.

10 comments:

  1. Oh they exist and there are many more than most people know. We live within a 1/4 mi of a low income projects and they are full of them. The worst is the entitled attitude most carry. If they paid attention to things I think most would be getting quite scared. Already China has said things about the stopping of buying our debt and if one day they decide not to buy anymore then the checks from social services will have to stop. If that day ever comes I hope I am far outside of the city by then!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think part of the reason why a lot of people have a hard time believing welfare "royalty" like this exist is because they haven't had to personally encounter these families for themselves, and because, when you're used to better, it's hard to imagine how anyone can be happy living with what is perceived as so little. Many millionaires likely wonder how we can be happy having so little compared to them, but it's because we're not missing the private chefs, high-thread-count silk sheets, silk toilet paper, etc., that they have, because we haven't lived with these luxuries on a regular basis to get used to them. Same thins for the WR who don't care to get off. They aren't missing what they haven't had. And because a lot of people of higher classes wouldn't feel happy having to go without some of the luxuries that are part of everyday life, clearly no one else can be happy.

    There's a phrase for it, I think "culture of poverty", or something similar, that applies to this. People who are happy living in poverty because it's what they've known.

    Sure, the system is supposed to kick people off at two years, but in practice, this just doesn't happen. It should though, except, perhaps, if someone is in school full time to learn a trade and gain the skills for employment. And that time limit should be motivation to try. What about the kids? Well, we shouldn't be having to bribe people with welfare money to feed their kids. If the only reason these kids are being fed is because someone else pays, then this is a sign of neglectful parents. But it's all supposed to be okay because the shrinking pool of taxpayers is supposed to have the endless funds necessary to keep these families in home, food, and medical care, even while going without themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  3. One state a few ears back locked benefits at what one would get for two children no matter how many you kept having and wonders of wonders the birtrate among welfare Mom's dropped overnight. Unfortunately I think it was the ACLU that sued and said it was discrimantory and they had to stop it and the birthrate went right back up.The system says it will do that but the little known secret is that if you have anther child durint that 2 year peroid it restarts the 2 years again.So in reality they are encouraging them with larger benefits to keep having them.Then a little know subsection of the Stimulas bill that passed wiped out welfare reform all together so that means that many of the benefits will go up and not down over the next year or so.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "We still haven't accepted a penny of aid, nor have we applied."

    Really? What do you call your IVF wishing well, then?

    ReplyDelete
  5. A wishing well registry to which people can voluntarily contribute is in no way the same as government aid to which people have no choice about contributing. No one has to give money to a registry someone sets up, but every worker must give money to WIC/welfare/food stamps/etc, regardless of ability to do without that money and still eat themselves. In fact, if you don't contribute tax money to welfare as a worker, you go to jail for tax evasion. If you don't want to give to a registry someone sets up, fine.

    I'm not surprised you're confused by the major difference.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mmm, you should have specified that you haven't accepted a penny of *government* aid, then.

    Although if you want to get down to it, you're faulting parents who want to have children but don't have the financial means to support the kids... much like you and Cody didn't (and still don't, to an extent) have the financial needs to have children, either. Interesting "logic" you have there.

    Of course, I'm not surprised that you're unable to see how hypocritical you are.

    ReplyDelete
  7. When we conceived her, we had the means to raise her without problem. I'm guessing you are equating having tens of thousands banked for fertility treatments with having the means to support a child. So many parents don't have tens of thousands banked, yet raise their children on their own dime just fine.

    If the litmus for being able to afford the costs of raising a child was having the ability to afford IVF out of pocket, whether or not needed, then almost every person alive today was a mistake who shouldn't be alive.

    For someone who claims to not be able to stand me, you sure seem to love me with how much you follow me around online and go out of your way to keep up on my life. Know what I do when I can't stand someone? I don't go out of my way to find where they are to keep up on their lives, I don't read their blogs, etc..

    I suspect you envy something about my life. If I'm right, you'll continue to read my blog (and post replies) and follow my life like the envious fan I think you are.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "I suspect you envy something about my life."

    LOL! That is honestly the funniest thing I've heard all day. You think *I* am jealous of YOU? What in the world would I be jealous of? Honey, I am not jealous of you - I thank God every day that I'm not the crazy fucking bitch like you are!

    I was merely checking up on you - haven't done that in a few weeks since I got your last LJ usernames banned (that is still such a sweet moment of joy in my life...), and I just figured it was time to see whether you were trying to get back in yet. Because let's face it - we both know you're going to get back into WP again. And let's face it - we both know I'm going to catch you again and you'll get banned again. It's a vicious cycle (for you, at least - I have about 50 vigilantes all over LJ laughing each time another one of your socks gets banned) all because you just won't give up. LOL

    The best part? You LOVE the drama - that's why you keep unscreening my comments. You're so obsessed with me!

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Checking up" on me proves my point. And getting what you think was me banned is a "still such a sweet moment" in your life? Wow, your life is DULL. If getting someone you're thinking might have been me banned from somewhere, which is something so minor, still is a high point in your life weeks later...wow.

    Stop eating cakes by the pan and get your fat, ugly ass off the couch and go outside once in a while. Might do you some good. At least you aren't likely to ever have kids. Poor things wouldn't need a sad bitch like you as a mother. You'd probably just eat them anyway. :)

    Also what makes ME laugh is every time I hear about you getting someone banned who ISN'T me. You have way too much time on your hands.

    You seek me out. I don't seek you out. So point that finger of obsession back at yourself. You admit to "checking up" on me. Holy shit, you really and truly don't have a life.

    No more of your comments will be unscreened. You've made my case entirely about your obsession with me. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.