General Discussion

etherealtruth

(22,165 posts)

121. Your issue ....

Fri Apr 11, 2014, 05:23 AM

Apr 2014

Last edited Fri Apr 11, 2014, 06:18 AM - Edit history (1)

if there is a cap on the duration of benefits ... Paying for four children for four years (born prior to the application for assistance) = Paying for four children for four years (born while on assistance) ... unless of course, one wants to identify good people (misfortune struck after the birth of children) vs the bad poor (people) .... you seem pretty clear on what constitutes the deserving and undeserving and it has nothing to do with budget constraints. "I would say that, unfortunately, things like that can happen to good people. You would have my sympathy. "

" ... you have an obligation to do whatever it takes to avoid getting pregnant, including not having sex. "

“Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well- warmed, and well-fed.”
― Herman Melville

There are a great number of people that share your thoughts and express them(almost verbatim) .... google many of the phrases you use, you will find many like minded people... It is very interesting that you mirror views the Heritage Foundation .

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

210 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why Is California Penalizing Poor Women for Wanting to Be Parents? [View all] xchrom Apr 2014 OP

Is the opposition to this change mostly a budgetary matter? el_bryanto Apr 2014 #1

If you can't afford one child, it's highly irresponsible to have more children. badtoworse Apr 2014 #2

Good question seveneyes Apr 2014 #4

No, that doesn't sound republican at ALL laundry_queen Apr 2014 #7

Accidents are covered BuelahWitch Apr 2014 #8

You don't mention BCP laundry_queen Apr 2014 #10

BCP = birth control pills, I guess? BuelahWitch Apr 2014 #16

That's a very common scam, in fact. Orrex Apr 2014 #24

Yes, of course that's what I'm accusing them of BuelahWitch Apr 2014 #25

Love it! Orrex Apr 2014 #31

Why do you want poor kids to have such a shitty life? BuelahWitch Apr 2014 #33

you're right- only the middle class plus should have children. the unfortunate poor should not. bettyellen Apr 2014 #35

Why does a woman's "desire" to have more babies BuelahWitch Apr 2014 #39

There are Dorian Gray Apr 2014 #123

That's a straw man. I don't want them to have a shitty life. Orrex Apr 2014 #40

Where did I ever say that children should be defunded? BuelahWitch Apr 2014 #41

In post 8 you argued that only certain "accidental" conceptions are permitted Orrex Apr 2014 #47

Once again, it's not worth an explanation BuelahWitch Apr 2014 #55

Perhaps you should ask yourself why others have identified your nonsense as nonsense Orrex Apr 2014 #57

Because maybe I don't give a flying fuck? BuelahWitch Apr 2014 #58

No, that's not it. Orrex Apr 2014 #62

about children? CreekDog Apr 2014 #164

plenty of wealthy people have shitty lives too. let's force rich assholes to take BC shots also... bettyellen Apr 2014 #43

You won't get any argument from me, I'm all for it. BuelahWitch Apr 2014 #44

yes, impoverished women should shun men and be punished if "accidents" occur- awesome! bettyellen Apr 2014 #46

Well duh. ForgoTheConsequence Apr 2014 #48

"progressive" it ain't. Thoughtful and compassionate is lacking here, big time. bettyellen Apr 2014 #53

Well, is it really an individual choice if the choice is a burden on the state? alp227 Apr 2014 #189

Burden on the state? ForgoTheConsequence Apr 2014 #194

False equivalence. alp227 Apr 2014 #195

I'm equating a social service with a social service. ForgoTheConsequence Apr 2014 #196

I disagree. Planned Parenthood provides all sorts of reproductive health care. alp227 Apr 2014 #197

And money provides for all sorts of provisions. ForgoTheConsequence Apr 2014 #198

It's a freaking hard dilemma. alp227 Apr 2014 #200

You are just determined to be angry at someone BuelahWitch Apr 2014 #50

Not angry at all, I'm laughing at this bullshit. Sorry if you read the tone wrong. bettyellen Apr 2014 #51

This, pretty much. nt AverageJoe90 Apr 2014 #80

this goes with your talking points denying climate change CreekDog Apr 2014 #165

What "denial"? AverageJoe90 Apr 2014 #174

That's ridiculous Orrex Apr 2014 #49

True, unless they pass the "ok the procreate" test. ForgoTheConsequence Apr 2014 #54

it's starting to sound that way- DUers comfortably judging poorer women for daring to get pregnant.. bettyellen Apr 2014 #56

In fairness, they are not telling other to buy guns for them joeglow3 Apr 2014 #59

LOL, but we're just steps away from China's family planning with pregnant women being incarcerated bettyellen Apr 2014 #64

I am surprised we have not seen it joeglow3 Apr 2014 #65

And I wanted a IUD or sterilization in my 20's and 30's but doctors refused me both- not trusting me bettyellen Apr 2014 #91

"Forced sterilization" is such an ugly term Orrex Apr 2014 #67

Spoken like a true Bene Tleilax. Dr. Strange Apr 2014 #206

And they should have oval faces, dammit. Orrex Apr 2014 #207

why do you? withholding assistance for those kids pretty much guarantees it CreekDog Apr 2014 #163

Well, what is the alternative way to take other than pure tongue in cheek not being recognized TheKentuckian Apr 2014 #149

it is a good question. you know what else sounds very r.w. like? demanding people take leftyohiolib Apr 2014 #18

Who is demanding people take 'personal responsibility' for their health care? laundry_queen Apr 2014 #28

we dems are demanding that - that was the whole push behind the aca leftyohiolib Apr 2014 #60

Well don't lump me in laundry_queen Apr 2014 #66

i wasnt lumping you in i was only responding to your post leftyohiolib Apr 2014 #76

Again, laundry_queen Apr 2014 #86

that's the way that poster rolls CreekDog Apr 2014 #162

Oh yeah. laundry_queen Apr 2014 #173

It's about choice. ScreamingMeemie Apr 2014 #9

How so? badtoworse Apr 2014 #13

No one is limiting anyone's choices. delta17 Apr 2014 #108

Exactly +1 n/t PasadenaTrudy Apr 2014 #15

interesting, I always thought this was a spoof :) snooper2 Apr 2014 #20

It's highly irresponsible to set up a trust fund for a child who will screw the next generation. rug Apr 2014 #21

"This is not about fiscal responsibility" badtoworse Apr 2014 #23

Just wondering ... how you would feel about someone like me ... etherealtruth Apr 2014 #94

The issue is whether you were already receiving CalWORKS when you had additional children badtoworse Apr 2014 #106

Your issue .... etherealtruth Apr 2014 #121

You might have a point if the state had unlimited resources, but it doesn't. badtoworse Apr 2014 #136

States receive TANF money in the form of block grants from the federal government. PotatoChip Apr 2014 #143

The requirements seem reasonable, but we are still talking finite resources. badtoworse Apr 2014 #146

she pointed out that you referred to people with money as "good people" CreekDog Apr 2014 #168

then why do you support holding the child responsible? CreekDog Apr 2014 #166

See Post #161 badtoworse Apr 2014 #167

do us a favor and read your own nonsense CreekDog Apr 2014 #169

I have to agree with you on this one. hamsterjill Apr 2014 #34

The fathers should absolutely have to take their share of responsibility badtoworse Apr 2014 #72

You didn't - my bad. hamsterjill Apr 2014 #78

OK badtoworse Apr 2014 #79

There are two solutions: starve the children or sterilize the mother Hippo_Tron Apr 2014 #112

No, there are more than two options. hamsterjill Apr 2014 #144

You can ask and educate all you want, some people will STILL have more kids than they can afford... Hippo_Tron Apr 2014 #179

The culture of expecting help must change. hamsterjill Apr 2014 #186

The money isn't running out... Hippo_Tron Apr 2014 #187

Then why do we already have hungry people in America? hamsterjill Apr 2014 #199

Be that as it may, do you propose we let the child go hungry? Hippo_Tron Apr 2014 #111

That is the real question. Should people who cannot afford children continue to have them, or lostincalifornia Apr 2014 #151

what's more irresponsible, for the mom to have the child or the state to punish it? CreekDog Apr 2014 #157

See Post #106 & #136 badtoworse Apr 2014 #158

i'm not following your trail, it's a yes or no question CreekDog Apr 2014 #160

I've already posted my views about this. It's not my problem if you're too lazy to read them. badtoworse Apr 2014 #161

So then why are Republicans blocking reproductive rights? csziggy Apr 2014 #171

I'm not blaming anyone. My point goes to California's policy being reasonable. badtoworse Apr 2014 #172

Sorry but this is the kind of thing that discredits our side.. Vietnameravet Apr 2014 #3

Of course. kcr Apr 2014 #11

did you read the sign? She thinks that its her right to have Vietnameravet Apr 2014 #184

What sign says that? I must have missed it n/t kcr Apr 2014 #188

It is not penalizing poor women for "wanting to be parents" BuelahWitch Apr 2014 #5

I'd like to think that sign was photoshopped into the Senators hands. KittyWampus Apr 2014 #6

Because "Motherhood" is only saintly when the rich and privileged enact it. Coventina Apr 2014 #12

It's unreal, on a democratic website, isn't it? laundry_queen Apr 2014 #32

+1 leftstreet Apr 2014 #45

I'm pro choice too, but nobody's arguing that..... AverageJoe90 Apr 2014 #83

It is never my intention to be dishonest. Coventina Apr 2014 #85

It's right there. "Because "Motherhood" is only saintly when the rich and privileged enact it". AverageJoe90 Apr 2014 #176

It's all over this thread, and has been from the very beginning. Coventina Apr 2014 #177

"It's all over this thread, and has been from the very beginning." I'm not so convinced of that. AverageJoe90 Apr 2014 #178

OK - here's a start: Coventina Apr 2014 #181

Still not convinced. None of these argue the exact thing you claimed. AverageJoe90 Apr 2014 #182

Please provide links for these criteria suggested by pediatricians and social workers Coventina Apr 2014 #183

It was more of a general thing(maybe it wasn't worded all that well, and I apologize). AverageJoe90 Apr 2014 #185

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Coventina Apr 2014 #209

Lots of Republican talking points in this thread gollygee Apr 2014 #14

"Lots of Republican talking points in this thread". Really? AverageJoe90 Apr 2014 #82

nope, not imagining things CreekDog Apr 2014 #170

I'm guessing you get a real kick out of stalking people, don't you? AverageJoe90 Apr 2014 #175

Lots of Republicans in this thread, I suspect. DanTex May 2014 #210

This is dumb ... GeorgeGist Apr 2014 #17

It's just crass. blueamy66 Apr 2014 #52

Yeah, she's looking to attract the wrong kind of attention. NaturalHigh Apr 2014 #71

Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2014 #75

Why not take that money and provide NV Whino Apr 2014 #19

Exactly! BuelahWitch Apr 2014 #27

I'm all for free birth control for everybody. NaturalHigh Apr 2014 #73

I chose not to have any children until I could provide for them. Throd Apr 2014 #22

You really think people born in the ghetto need to leave it before they can reproduce? WOW. bettyellen Apr 2014 #92

Purposely having children you cannot afford to provide for is an irresponsible action. Throd Apr 2014 #96

So poor people should not reproduce in your judgement- got it. bettyellen Apr 2014 #97

You know that is not what I am saying. I'm familiar with your act. Throd Apr 2014 #100

It's not an act LOL. You judge the poor as irresponsible for having babies- ergo you feel a better bettyellen Apr 2014 #102

I'm speaking as someone who WAS poor. Having a child at that time would have been a bad decision. Throd Apr 2014 #103

So if they haven't "pulled themselves up" - they should not have kids. bettyellen Apr 2014 #128

I agree with you - children aren't a right, they are a privilege. Red State Rebel Apr 2014 #134

.... and I am sure that no misfortune or tragedy could ever take away your ability to provide etherealtruth Apr 2014 #95

If my circumstances change for the worse, I sure won't elect to have any more children. Throd Apr 2014 #98

You are a shining example for the great unwashed masses etherealtruth Apr 2014 #101

I'm not talking about children already born. Throd Apr 2014 #104

How is that consistent? etherealtruth Apr 2014 #105

see post #106 Throd Apr 2014 #109

Doesn't explain consistency etherealtruth Apr 2014 #120

See Post #136 badtoworse Apr 2014 #137

No, I would rather not etherealtruth Apr 2014 #145

What an erudite response. badtoworse Apr 2014 #147

this is not about misfortune Vietnameravet Apr 2014 #202

So how do you feel about Nadya Suleman's choices? B2G Apr 2014 #26

I feel so sorry for those kids n/t BuelahWitch Apr 2014 #29

That woman probably needed laundry_queen Apr 2014 #30

Agreed! As someone who has been through the IVF process I can tell you or anyone Coventina Apr 2014 #42

Hey look, a thread full of poor shaming and right wing talking points. ForgoTheConsequence Apr 2014 #36

rght wingers would have no , none ,nada, zilcho, zero, dollars going to anyone leftyohiolib Apr 2014 #77

It sure reads that way etherealtruth Apr 2014 #99

No one is penalizing them LittleBlue Apr 2014 #37

I think the key to the issue people are having with this is in the title The Straight Story Apr 2014 #38

First off, birth control should be provided for those who can't afford it seveneyes Apr 2014 #61

Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2014 #89

Perhaps a compromise would be to change it so that DebJ Apr 2014 #63

Out of the 8 children the woman has, PotatoChip Apr 2014 #88

Most of them from what I was told. She lives in the neighborhood of a friend DebJ Apr 2014 #93

8 children while on welfare (aka TANF) would be impossible due to time limits. PotatoChip Apr 2014 #122

Thanks for the information, first of all......... DebJ Apr 2014 #125

Yes. It is a federal program administered by the state. PotatoChip Apr 2014 #138

It's not difficult here to be in a situation where adequate child care can't be found. DebJ Apr 2014 #141

That was the first link I came to when googling. PotatoChip Apr 2014 #148

thanks! DebJ Apr 2014 #156

Just a thought, maybe we need a welfare system for able bodied adults? Hippo_Tron Apr 2014 #113

That would certainly be more cost efficient than paying for a crack baby as well. DebJ Apr 2014 #115

Again look at the UK, does everyone just sit on their ass and collects a check there? Hippo_Tron Apr 2014 #116

I'm fine with the dole part. It's the crack part that bothers me. n/t DebJ Apr 2014 #117

The woman you describe really needs the help of a social worker... Hippo_Tron Apr 2014 #118

What's a "CRACK baby"? Recursion Apr 2014 #119

That's interesting. I never saw that revision and I've been a newshound for some years now. DebJ Apr 2014 #126

Cool crack baby story! It's raining money on shitty Moms, lol. bettyellen Apr 2014 #129

My goodness! I am so sorry. DebJ Apr 2014 #131

Such useful "stories" you pass on, smearing the poor by likening them to addicts! bettyellen Apr 2014 #133

bettyellen, you don't know me at all, nor have you seen my Facebook page DebJ Apr 2014 #139

I'm sure you are doing wonderful work, but repeating RW memes is an odd way of supporting the poor.. bettyellen Apr 2014 #150

I was citing a particular case, not repeating an everyone is like this so we should kill it theme. DebJ Apr 2014 #155

I think it was the "crack baby" comment tossed out, that made it sound so weird and RW. bettyellen Apr 2014 #159

Ok. I understand that. Don't know what a better term would be though. n/t DebJ Apr 2014 #204

I think a lot of people have mixed feelings. Shrike47 Apr 2014 #68

California has a 4 year lifetime limit on welfare. Xithras Apr 2014 #69

"but no child should be punished simply for being born poor." I think that most people here on DU. AverageJoe90 Apr 2014 #84

Nobody is being penalized for anything MO_Moderate Apr 2014 #70

I don't see this as a bad thing. Vashta Nerada Apr 2014 #74

What do they do about families who have children and THEN become poor or when there is a jwirr Apr 2014 #81

Not the most common cause where I live. DebJ Apr 2014 #135

I have seen this in neighborhoods impacted with high poverty also but the neighborhoods I saw jwirr Apr 2014 #140

Thanks for the positive note! DebJ Apr 2014 #142

i don't care if you can afford it or not.... Scout Apr 2014 #87

California is so dysfunctional and messed up that to even rumdude Apr 2014 #90

I lived in California back when 2naSalit Apr 2014 #107

I've gotta wonder why it's so horrible to suggest....... WillowTree Apr 2014 #110

Reaganite!!!! CFLDem Apr 2014 #114

Reaganite seems dead on to me. Your solution to raising children in poverty is less resources for TheKentuckian Apr 2014 #132

Wrong CFLDem Apr 2014 #153

"Send them and their chillin to the work farm. Make sure they don't have no more" TheKentuckian Apr 2014 #190

Work farm??? CFLDem Apr 2014 #193

The $120/mo. figure is stated as the motivation exboyfil Apr 2014 #124

Purposefully having another child while on welfare (aka TANF) would be a horrible 'investment'. PotatoChip Apr 2014 #127

Same old ass Ronald Reagan "welfare queen" mumbo jumbo. TheKentuckian Apr 2014 #130

Best option is the conclusion of many social scientists exboyfil Apr 2014 #154

I think that supports my point, societal meltdown and such instances are untreated side effects. TheKentuckian Apr 2014 #191

Then we are in agreement exboyfil Apr 2014 #192

California is not�.How many children does one need to become a parent? Tikki Apr 2014 #152

True. AverageJoe90 Apr 2014 #180

Massive props to everyone who had the patience to counter the right-wing bullshit on this thread Cal Carpenter Apr 2014 #201

On behalf of righties every, where Thanks Holly for helping the cause of making Vietnameravet Apr 2014 #203

Using an anti-government slogan when you are campaigning FOR government assistance... redgreenandblue Apr 2014 #205

My apologies but when a friend complains that she needs another child McCamy Taylor Apr 2014 #208