In what situations does it make sense for society to absorb the cost of raising children? Should we be making judgments at all about which parents are "worthy" of help? If you don't have children, do you resent the ways in which you wind up paying for those who do? If you do have children, do you think the government/society ought to help out more than it does? If you waited to have children until you could afford them, do you resent those who made a different decision?

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2000

Answers

I admit, this is a subject that makes me just a little frothy. The whole "kids as joyous accident" concept is ridiculous, in an age of effective contraception. You get one accident. Maybe. Perhaps.

I cannot share your joy, for instance, if you tell me that to your shock you are pregnant yet again, whilst your six-year-old (born when you were sixteen) is being cared for by your mother, and your four-year-old (by yet another father than either of the other two) by the mother of said father.

What I resent is not the money. It is the sad waste of potential in all these children. Do not have children if you cannot or will not take the onus upon yourself to see to it that they will grow up beloved and cared for. Use birth control, with care and attention, if you are "not sure you're quite ready for children." Parenthood is not a thing that should come as a nasty surprise, people. These are more human beings you are producing. If you can't afford so much as a condom (hello! for pete's sake!) then BITE DOWN AND JUST DON'T FUCK. Please. Thank you.

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2000

Of course, you just nailed one of the reasons why it's hard to judge who's worthy of assistance -- it's impossible to judge a particular situation without knowing the specifics.

For instance: superficially, a family living in a $250,000 house with all the nice things that many thousands of dollars in debt can buy is more "suitable" for raising children than a family on welfare, if you want to look at material things. On the other hand, the woman in the grocery store looked like she was working her ass off to keep those kids fed (she was buying the kinds of inexpensive foods that take time and effort to prepare, for one thing); her kids were well behaved and polite, and the older ones were taking care of the younger ones. I have a hunch that the bankruptcy kids weren't so nice -- I mean, what do think you get with a daddy who chooses to file for bankruptcy so his kids don't have to do without luxuries?

I can tell you which set of kids I would be willing to hire to mow my lawn ... I can also tell you which set of kids would be willing to do it.

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2000

Beth, I don't have anything to add to this discussion because what you wrote was ABSOLUTELY PERFECT. Will you PLEASE forget about that pesky lawyer job and go get yourself a job writing for a national newspaper/magazine right away? :)

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2000

It's sorta sad that competition has so permeated our ideology that many of us worry more about the small time welfare recipients getting a little bit of help than we do about the big-time crooks who make billions in Wal*Mart and McDonald's stock who's value comes from the labor of those same folks (who MAKE the billions, but only get to keep $6 an hour).

Why not take that wealth we're all creating and instead of giving it to a few thousand really rich folks, use it to fund universal health care (none of these insurance schemes. Free health care, period) INCLUDING reproductive health care. It wouldn't hurt to teach kids about sex in schools, I know districts without sex ed have higher teen pregnancy rates than districts with sex ed.

What may seem like "common sense" to us is usually learned behavior, and people who never learned that behavior should not be dismissed as stupid but it should be understood that they were not exposed to what we were exposed to. Therefore, we're not dealing with an unfixable problem of human stupidity ("human nature" is the favorite dissmissive nonargument of the reactionary) but a fixable problem of education.

Compulsory sex ed and free health care would help a lot. And while we're at it, who's job is it to determine what a three year old does or doesn't deserve based on things their parents did.

If I work as a janitor, or a day care worker, or a school teacher, are my kids less deserving of a good school or a full belly than the kids of the guy who works as a personal injury lawyer, or who is the CEO of a tobacco company?

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2000

I think that's what really got me about that bankruptcy store -- it was that guy's sense of entitlement. He kept talking about his family's "survival," but there was no indication that they were starving (or even doing without anything). He meant "survival" in the sense of staying in their nice neighborhood, going to good colleges, and having a nice secure retirement in the future. So why is he entitled to that? Why do his kids get a college fund when other kids work their way through? Because Dad worked real hard and was good at his job? Obviously not. Because of who they are, that's why. Or more accurately, who Dad thinks they are.

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2000

Dad obviously wasn't much good at his job: what kind of "financial manager" allows himself to accumulate $50,000 worth of debt on a credit card?

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2000

I think that people should have to have a license to have kids. Practically, that's impossible, I know. But I've seen lots of kids abused and neglected (or sopiled and overindulged, but ignored). In Edmonton, we had a case of a couple who starved their son. He was 6 months old and weighed the same as he did when he was born. Another mother shot her 7 year old daughter.

I've seen stupid parents in shopping centres who let their kids wander around without supervision. I've seen behavioral problems blamed on ADD. I've had little kids swear at me like sailors because that's all they've been exposed to by their parents. Kids taught by age seven how to steal. Kids who watch their parents get high.

Where do these kids go? Well, if the social workers actually find out about them, they might get taken away and put in foster homes. Then the burden rests on society to pay for them. We might get lucky-- they might be really good kids (and I believe that all kids start out good, despite the parents) and they could rise above what life has dealt them. I know lots of kids do. But what if they don't? They could end up repeating the mistakes of their parents, and burdening society through their adult years, too. I knew a girl who grew up on welfare. She believed it was her right. If she worked, she still managed to hide it so she could claim welfare. She has two kids (or more, now). If Joanne was any indication, they will follow in their mother's footsteps, just as Joanne came from a long line of welfare scammers. What if they go to jail? We pay for that, too.

After seeing all these kids who weren't wanted, or were wanted for the wrong reasons, I look at people I know who would love to have children, so they could make a difference in someone's life. They're forced to go through lengthy adoption processes which can take several years to complete. Or they have to go childless and watch as people around them treat kids like commodities and weapons in divorce, or ignore them or abuse them, or pawn them off on relatives because they couldn't be bothered to take care of them. It's not fair, is it? I think that in order to have a child, you should have to go through a process of personality testing, courses and licensing to determine if you would be a good parent. Money should not be a deciding factor, but responsability, temperment, mental stability and problem solving would be. I mean, you have to liscence a dog (and here in Edmonton, cats). Aren't children important enough to deserve good parents right from the start?

Ooo, this soapbox is getting a little high. I'll get off now.

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2000

My six-year-old nephew Ryan recently asked his grandmother (Donna, my MIL), with whom he lives, if Mommy could pleeeeease live with them again if and when she re-emerges from her current gutter. Ryan promised Donna that if she allowed the woman to live with them again, he would check her bed every day to make sure she was in it. It disgusts me that this boy at this age is asking to be yoked with babysitting a thieving, uneducable, crack-smoking whore, ready to blame himself when she disappears again. Perhaps it should gratify me that her influence has not made him a sociopath.

This is not a case where you can blame the parenting. Rich turned out just fine. Lynda of Parenthesis, I think, said in another forum that good parents wind up with bad kids and vice versa, and that's true. If Ryan turns out badly, it might not be any more Jennifer's fault than it would be to Donna's credit if he turned out well.

I am judgmental enough (big surprise) that I want parents to be licensed. I am human and feminist enough to know that that is wrong. I went to the childfree listserve through your links today, Beth, and saw that someone advocated buying things made in China because "we should encourage" China's one-child-per-family policy. I abhor population control, but I do wish that everyone would see how right I am and choose to limit her reproduction to one or fewer.

I think the biological imperative, the urge to reproduce, is perfectly natural. I also think it's one of those things we should struggle to overcome. Our brains have prevented smallpox, increased the seed-to-yield ratio, and invented a lot of things to get our species' population way out of whack. I hope that our formidable intellects can also help us overcome the desire to reproduce.

As far as society helping out, the correlation between better education for women and lower birth rates has been fairly well proven. Therefore I believe in better education for all (this is the panacea I prescribe for every ill). I believe that whatever children are born should be loved and educated, fed and healthy. Therefore I believe in education for parents, education for children, and yes, available food and medical care.

Overall, I don't think we can judge *parents* being worthy of help or not. I do think *children* in need of help should be, whatever their parents' status.

Uber all, I do recognize that I just think I'm right. And cyncical. And not a parent.

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2000

I would not presume to tell anyone else what to do in this area. Even to share what I did smacks of presumption.

I went to college, and graduate school, on the GI Bill, scholarships, loans, odd jobs, and fellowships. So did Brenda. We got married when we graduated from college, and had fellowships to graduate school.

Nixon got in, the money dried up, and we dropped out. I decided to become a writer. I was only going to graduate school because I got paid to go, and I thought anthropology professor would be my day job.

Without an advanced degree, you can't teach. Except for teaching, there's not much you can do, in anthropology, that pays above the minimum wage, no benefits (archeological field worker).

We went to the mountains to live poor and write. We lived poor and I wrote. Brenda had Owen, and stayed at home, to nurse him.

I worked as a laborer and clerk for four years, with stretches of unemployment between menial jobs. We were closer to grinding, than to genteel poverty. We lived hand-to-mouth. We weren't eligible for welfare because I owned a truck, to get to my job and back in. I made too much money, when I worked, for food stamps. When I was unemployed, I was not eligible for unemployment because I hadn't paid any in, I quit, or I was fired, for cause.

Laborer and clerk was the best job I could get, because I had a liberal arts degree and four years of graduate work in an impractical major.

I got a paraprofessional job in engineering, as a technical writer. We had Balder, because we wanted Owen to have a brother or a sister. My job had health insurance, but the total it paid on prenatal care and delivery of a baby was $200. For the hospital and the doctor.

Brenda nursed Balder, and minded Owen, at home. He wasn't old enough for kindergarten yet. We could not afford nursery school.

I got laid off in November, and we drew food stamps, until my unemployment started up. The food stamps were a life saver.

We moved back to our old college town, Brenda put the boys in nursery school, and went back to work. I got laid off from the job I moved to take, filed a grievance, and was blacklisted, as a troublemaker.

Back to working as a laborer, temporary jobs, unemployment, brief spells of food stamps.

We lived in a hovel on the edge of Frenchtown, with the crack cocaine, and so forth. I was evicted, because my landlord wanted to sell the house. Around in here I quit drinking. I reached the end of my active drinking.

We moved to my home town and I took a job in a bank my father had been on the board of directors of. Brenda went into telecommunications just as that field was opening up, and worked her way up, from the tool crib, to technical instructor. You couldn't do that now.

We lived in a hovel on the edge of historic colored town my grandfather sold us. When he and my grandmother died, I inherited enough money to buy their house from the estate. I got a job as an information developer at IBM.

We made good money. I published a book. I free-lanced.

I quit IBM, mortgaged the house, and tried to make it as a writer.

I didn't make it.

We moved to Brenda's home town. We both got good jobs, there. A high-tech, two-paycheck family.

The defense drawdown hit. I was out of work for three years, off and on, and Brenda was out of work for a year. She took successive pay cuts, at successively less high-tech jobs. Ending in a prison, maintaining the computers.

We lost our house. We declared bankruptcy. We were allowed to keep $5,000 worth of goods, including the two cars we drove to work.

Owen had dropped out of high school and gone on the road with a band. Balder enlisted in the Marines, to get the GI Bill, and go to college, when he got out.

I got a job out of town, a permanent job, with benefits, including retirement, if the Old Rollback doesn't get me, first.

Brenda moved to Atlanta. Our credit is repaired. We bought a house, with an FHA loan and 3% down.

Balder's going to college. Owen's on the road with a band.

Owen and Jeannie just got married. No grandchildren yet. Balder isn't married.

If the past is any guide, the economy will turn sour, I'll be laid off, I'll lose group health insurance and won't be able to afford a private plan, I'll spend what retirement I have accrued to make the mortgage payment, we may hang in there, we may end up in a trailer.

We won't be eligible for welfare because we make too much.

I think the government should spend more money on public health, education, and child care for children of working parents. I wouldn't mind paying more taxes for that. I'd also like to see tax- breaks for corporations done away with and less money spent on the military-industrial complex.

I don't see that happening in my lifetime. I see Newt Gingrich's orphanages and poorhouses and welfare reform that punishes poor people for being poor. More money spent on prisons than on schools.

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2000

Society is already spending more than it can afford, raising other people's children. When it starts becoming such a massive problem, then yes, I think we can start making judgements. In a general way. ;- )
I have three children, with one more on the way. With that being said, I know after this that I *definitely* DO NOT want any more and am doing the responsible thing and getting fixed. All the children were wanted, they are all loved, clothed, educated and extremely well- fed. And yes, all children, regardless of their parents are entitled to be loved, fed, educated, looked after health-wise and clothed.
Can I afford them? Yes, I can. I also own my own home and am debt- free. We have one credit card we pay off almost every single month. Here in Canada, the government provides a supplement to families based (sensibly enough) on the number of children and your income levels. Higher income, less supplement. And currently I own THREE cars. i think switching to one mini-van (oh god, not one of those large things..) would be less pollution overall.
I can't tell you how many friends i have with only one or two kids, both parents working to basically pay for a house & car they can't afford. Not to mention all the things Johnny "needs" because his friends have one, too.
Education is good, especially if it were in the realm of financial management. There are too many people out there who believe that their paycheck will magically appear every month, and they'll pay for things "later".
I also grew up in a city that had a high teen pregnancy rate. It grew higher after the implementation of sex education. The real problem? Why get an education or a job when you can pull down over $1,000 CAN a month off welfare, and get them to put your child(ren) in daycare too? (I realize there are people on welfare who get a raw deal. I seem to met the ones who get away with it)
Everything you said on the main page was Well-Said, in my opinion. My goodness, this soapbox is getting slippery.....

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2000

How many times is Jack going to tell his life story?

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2000

Oh God, don't get me started.

I don't have children and I don't like children and the whole thing makes me tear my hair out.

I'm so disgusted by people who have children they can't afford - both in money and time and emotional terms. It's like taking a second job, people. It's serious hard work. A child isn't going to be "someone to love you back" for years, if ever. Accept that and the work that goes along with it and be a parent when you're ready for it, not because it seems like a fun idea.

There need to be more abortions, not fewer.

Out of enlightened self interest I think the govt/society should help people with their children, but I wish it were some way to do it fairly. That woman at the market sounds like she was working hard and doing a great job. That asshole who's trying to "survive" with all that credit card debt doesn't deserve help. But all the kids in these stories are going to grow up and be the the future. Even though it's not fair, I'd rather they get the resources they need to be productive members of society. Even though that sounds like a cliche. I don't know the answer.

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2000

I am irritated on so many levels. Everyone, rich or poor has a right to have children. But a right is always balanced by responsibilities. If you can't deal with the responsibilities, you don't have the right. And I can relate to Beth's experience in the grocery store. Many times I have been behind a woman like that and on a few occasions she has been short a few dollars, even with WIC and food stamps. And these women have always been purchasing whole food, not crap. I have always happily provided the few dollars to help them get home without having to choose something to put back. And we can't judge why these people are in these situations. She may have gone through a divorce and seen her income take a dive. Her spouse may have died. I have personally never met a "welfare mother" who didn't want to change her situation and make a better life for her kids and I used to work at a daycare center with lots of "welfare" families. My husband and I are trying to raise our twin daughters with good values and without a sense of entitlement. They aren't entitled to a college education. We will try to help them, but Mama put herself through college and they can, too, if need be. My husband and i have nice things, but we worked hard to pay for them and we are working hard to stay as debt-free as possible. As for they folks in Illinois: Sometimes you have to make sacrifices. I sympathize with their dilemma in driving a Suburban for the simple fact that vehicles aren't made that offer extended seating room. If you have a larger family or even 3 kids under 5 you can't fit all the carseats. But, maybe they need to look into purchasing two smaller cars and curtailing some activities. Doesn't their school district have bussing? Can't some of the kids carpool with friends and Mom and Pop could pay the other parents a little for the savings they would realize? Seems some people don't think things through...

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2000

Katie, your comment about the car reminds me of a story someone told me once.

She grew up extremely poor on a farm in upstate New York and was the youngest of ten (!) children. The family could only afford one car, and it only seated four, so whenever the family wanted to go somewhere together, their parents would shuttle the kids there over the course of several trips.

This was certainly not an ideal situation (some of the other stories she told me about her upbringing were pretty hair-raising) but I think it serves as a reminder that many of the things we consider to be necessities are actually conveniences.

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2000

whoa.. this one always brings out strong feelings doesn't it? As usual, I'm torn in a million directions, agreeing with bits of what everyone's saying... so I'll just point out the parts I haven't heard yet:

1) Yes, it "makes sense" for society to absorb cost (responsibility?) for raising children if that is the only means left to see to it that they are raised - it makes sense, because society is where they will be spending the rest of their lives, and society WILL pay for that, one way or another. I'd far rather see the investment made while they are still children, then having to clean up the mess after they are adults. It's be wonderful if society still voluntarily recognized that responsibility and took care of its own without intervention, but in a culture where most of us don't even know the names of our next door neighbors, it's not happening.

2) Yes, I used to (and still do when I am made aware of it) get pretty outraged when my neighbor on welfare was buying jars of overpriced shrimp cocktail, and I was on recipe 1,342 in my collection of 1,000,000 ways to turn rice into a meal, because I chose to work 15 hour days to support my kids. On the other hand, that meant a little Russian Roulette when it came to raising those kids, and I also knew welfare parents who did NOT abuse the welfare money AND were there for their kids bringing them up, and I'm still not convinced that taking the proud independent route was necessarily the best thing I could have done for my kids. I also know I wouldn't have to work 15 hour days if I'd had public assistance for day care - I believe the public school system should be expanded to cover that. It would do tremendous good in reducing the burden of adults who literally cannot afford to work and support their own families.

3) Good parenting involves one hell of a lot more than money, and its a mistake to make that the arbitor of whether one ought to have kids. I worked for nearly a year for one of the wealthier families in DC - money coming out their butts, and their children were four of the most useless human beings I've ever seen. Having things given to you doesn't teach much, and it sure doesn't make up for parenting. I'm with Beth on that - give me a collection of welfare kids that have been raised over a bunch of overprivileged, neglected rich kids any day.

4) No, it shouldn't be one's 'right' to have children without thought - I'd love to see a licensing method come to pass, but to do that we better first get birth control TRULY made available and idiot proof. In the meanwhile, if anyone can find it, there's a book I read years ago called The Parent Test that I think anyone old enough for parenthood to be a possibility should read. I think it's out of print now, but it should be part of a required course in ..um... junior high, repeated in high school, and again once someone is out on their own.

5.) Battle to prevent kids who will be neglected with all your might - but deciding you're going to neglect them (even if they are someone else's kids) because you're pissed at their existance once they are here is mightily unfair. At that point all your theory is moot - and every child deserves to grow up decently even if the adults in their lives are irresponsible.

-- Anonymous, June 20, 2000

This doesn't really answer any questions because frankly my opinion on this topic is rather lengthy and may possibly be insulting to some people so I'll keep my clam shut on this one.

I would, however, like to quote my mother because I still get a kick out of it every once and a while, especially when I see a 24 year old on her 3rd *accident*.

"Just keep your whore legs crossed."
[Now that's birth control for ya, eh? Also note, I do not think birth control is solely a woman thing just because I get a chuckle out of this quote.]

Pretty darn amazing I turned out relatively sane with the parents I have but I have to say, if anything they were very responsible parents. Crazy - but responsible.

-- Anonymous, June 21, 2000

I don't want to piss anyone off with this thought, but in reading these posts, I noticed that we are assuming that these families have made a conscious decision about getting themselves into a tough situation. I know it doesn't directly relate to the original question Beth posted, but the answers have brought this up.

My mother used to work in a Baltimore City ER for many years. Baltimore has the highest incidence of unwed mothers, especially teen mothers. She used to see girls come in so emotionally turned around. They were from broken homes and just wanted someone to love them. They thought the guy who got them pregnant loved them. And when he bailed, they wanted to keep the baby so they could have someone in their life who loved them and who they could take care of.

On another note, I have friends who are trying to adopt. The birth mother is a single mom with three kids who is pregnant with her fourth. This girl is not very responsible in all aspects. She doesn't keep them informed about appointments, is late to their meetings. It is clear to me that she is in this situation because she is not mature enought to make responsible decisions.

So my question is...what do we do about these children? We have to give them a chance. And can we be angry and frustrated with these mothers/families because they aren't mature enought to handle adult responsibilities?

It just seems like a much bigger issue to me than those families who consciously have children they can't afford. I think the majority children society is helping these days are part of a much larger group, with issues we can't even begin to fix with better birth control or reproductive education.

Sorry this really isn't an answer. I just don't know.

-- Anonymous, June 21, 2000

I feel like a Nazi for thinking this way.....

I think the government should take the kids and give them to people who can afford to raise them without government assistance.

Like Lynda said, I get so upset in the grocery store seeing people buying steak with their food stamps. I spend hours on the net searching for coupons and low cost recipes to save money.

I don't know what the answer is. I don't want to see hungry kids but I also don't want to support them because the parents made bad choices.

When I was growing up, I always envisioned having 6!!! kids. Now I'm questioning whether we should have more than one because of the cost.

-- Anonymous, June 21, 2000

One time I drew food stamps.

I had just gotten out of a VA hospital, for hypertension, from worrying about losing my job.

I lost the job anyway.

Larry and Hazel visited. They later said I looked like I was dying.

Larry and I were in the supermarket, in America's Most Patriotic City (Fort Walton Beach), where they had a 99% turnout for Gerald Ford's swine flu immunication program. The old people dropping like flies.

I said to Larry, "Yes, you see, I can pay for the prime rib and king crab legs with my food stamps. That lets me save my cash for beer and cigarettes."

Larry said, "Incoming." What he meant was a man was having apoplexy, one aisle over.

Epatez les bourgeoises. If you haven't been poor, for long stretches of time, you don't know what you're talking about.

Let them eat cake. If you want to be a writer, you can always write about eating disorders and body-image issues, in women's magazines, and people won't have to tell you to take your bongos and go home.

Being poor was my own fault. I wouldn't write "How To Get an Even Tan." People who would, don't like me.

I don't blame them.

-- Anonymous, June 21, 2000

Gee, I thought you were poor because you were A Writer Who No One Appreciated.

-- Anonymous, June 21, 2000

Does anyone have any idea at all what Jack is spouting about? he's lost me...

-- Anonymous, June 21, 2000

Baltimore has the highest incidence of unwed mothers, especially teen mothers. She used to see girls come in so emotionally turned around. They were from broken homes and just wanted someone to love them. They thought the guy who got them pregnant loved them. And when he bailed, they wanted to keep the baby so they could have someone in their life who loved them and who they could take care of.

And I realized after I posted most people didn't know my background. I had my first child when I was 17. I spent a grand total of maybe 8 months on welfare. ($235 a month) They booted me off after they told me to get a student loan to go to school. Best thing that ever happened to me. I could have told them any number of stories (true and otherwise) to get back on, but I knew I'd be screwed (again) if I went that route.

Yeah, I've been lucky, really lucky. But I haven't lived like most of my neighbours, either. We purposely keep ourselves in the lowest tax bracket (we're self-employed, both of us) and we mainly try to remember two things: responsibility and accountability. I admit, I had to learn a few things along the way, but I still think I was damn lucky.

Remind me to write an entry or two about the year my husband (then a computer programmer) almost had a nervous breakdown. We lived off of savings (and not a lot of them), since we had the foresight to plan ahead becasue he wasn't eligable for unemployment and my skills are barely marketable. That was the year we never ate in a restaurant, never rented a movie, never bought anything new, and my kids had never even heard of many of the favourite snakcs of preschoolers. It was also the time I occasionally skipped lunch (as well as breakfast which I don't eat anyway) so there was enough to go around.

It's just one of those things you actually have to *think* about when you get there, not just hope society will catch you in its safety net. Someday it just might not be there.

-- Anonymous, June 21, 2000

In a perfect world everyone should plan for their kids and accept the financial responsibilities for them. (Every one of my kids were planned, BTW---which is a good thing, because Barb and I found that anytime we stopped birth control, it didn't take long to get her pregnant. Infertility was NOT our problem. After the last kid, Eric, she had her tubes tied, and that was that.)

But there's only one answer. You have to help a kid; a kid isn't responsible for being there. He or she shouldn't pay for their parents' misjudgements. Yes, they should be supported by society.

However, I don't think it unreasonable to ask for a tube-tying or a vascectomy if one is being supported by the government and THEN has another kid, and the alternative would be the children being moved to a foster home.

Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, June 21, 2000

There is one more reality check I forgot to mention - it would sure be great if we could all guarantee that today we are as poor as we will ever be - that income will only improve from here on out.

t'ain't so. A couple can plan for a child, have the maturity and financial means to raise and support that child... but they cannot guarantee that over the span of the next 18 years they will always be in the same or better financial state they are in. People lose spouses (and their income) through death or divorce, lose jobs, get sick and can't maintain their current occupation - in short, shit happens. Just because you see someone using food stamps, or on welfare, it doesn't always follow that they got there through irresponsibility.

-- Anonymous, June 21, 2000

I like kids, especially mine.

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2000

Oh, that's Pamie's question. Sorry. I got confused. I shouldn't have more than one window open at a time.

Should we support kids born to irresponsible parents? No. We should treat them like Oliver Twist was treated. That's civilized.

You know, people forget that welfare mothers and fathers can be pretty okay. I'd rather have a welfare single parent who uses food stamps to buy filet mignon than a rich, job-responsible father who thinks my butt is his sex toy and a pretty, sophisticated mother who thinks that's okay so long as the credit cards kept going through.

Sorry to be so blunt, but the topic is blunt.

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2000

A few comments on some of the political ideas expressed in this interesting thread:

"Why not take that wealth we're all creating and instead of giving it to a few thousand really rich folks..."

This kind of thinking is what has made Cuba and North Korea the economic powerhouses they are today.

"... use it to fund universal health care (none of these insurance schemes. Free health care, period) INCLUDING reproductive health care."

I agree that we have a problem in the United States because under our system people who don't work can get medical care from the government, middle and upper economic class people can get decent medical insurance. No tax money should go to abortions except in rare cases of real medical need. Many abortions look just like murder to about half the American people, and it's not right or fair to ask this half to subsidize what to them is murder.

People trying to get started on the economic ladder are screwed, since because they work they don't get government health care, but their low level jobs can't justify a good insurance program. We need to come up with a system that covers this group of people.

What we DON'T need is some kind of giant government HMO, and we don't need "free" care either. A Hillary/North Korean style top down command program would be a disaster, combining the worse elements of the post office and the IRS.

There is no free medical care, and this kind of thinking should be discouraged. I think we ought to move toward a system where everyone pays cash for their minor medical problems, backed up with a medical savings account. For major medical problems I'd like to see the government facilitate creation of a group of competing privately run medical plans , with the government subsidizing membership for folks on the lower rungs of the job ladder. This could be patterned on the existing plan that federal Civil Servants have. Whatever we come up with has to have strong elements of choice, competition, and personal responsibility. The Evil Newt proposed just such a system, but it was derided for the diabolical plot that it surely was.

"Nixon got in, the money dried up, and we dropped out." I seriously doubt that this fellow's money dried up because of Nixon. Nixon expanded every branch of the government in a huge way. Government spending and power exploded under Nixon. Perhaps even the government loses patience funding perpetual students at some point.

"I see Newt Gingrich's orphanages ..." . I'm curious, do liberal parents threaten their kids with Newt Gingrich? Do they say things like "Eat your zucchini or the Newt will get you in the night!"

"Here in Canada, the government provides a supplement to families based (sensibly enough) on the number of children and your income levels." We have something like that in the United States, it is called "the earned income credit (EIC)" and was instituted by the evil Nixon. This program provides a refundable tax credit for low income folks who normally pay little or no taxes. You have to earn some income to get EIC. EIC increases with the number of children up to two. If you have more than two children, you can "lend" them to a relative for tax purposes to increase your family's net "refund". EIC is really a good program, but it needs to be tightened up because fraud is rampant under the current system (ask any tax preparer). I like the fact that the EIC stops increasing after 2 kids, but its too bad that this restriction is so easy to circumvent.

This has been an interesting thread with many excellent posts, thanks to all for participating.

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2000

Jim... glad you pointed out that free healthcare ain't free, it's gov't paid (and we are the gov't, yadda yadda). But government sponsered healthcare doesn't just lead to the likes of Cuba, et al.. it also leads to Canada...and the US Military, which is just about as opposite of communist as you can get.

Now mind you, I'm the first to stand up and say that military healthcare is a big fat pain in the ass... but it's changing! It's going to a more HMO style plan.

And guess what? It sucks worse. Private industry and insurance companies have put GOOD healthcare out of the reach of pretty much everyone unless you are latched onto the insurance company's skirts and willing to let some accountant decide if you really, REALLY need to get that biopsy.

Government intervention isn't all evil - if it can set a baseline for minimal healthcare rights and discourage the appalling price hikes that have happened because of insurance rates (patients and doctors) and medical price fixing, then that would be a good thing for everyone.

There can still be a choice to get private healthcare if you can afford it (as military members have always done), but at least there is a bare minimum that you can be assured of.

And if I can slip in a little bit of dogmatism here - if it's adequate for the military, then just why in hell shouldn't it be adequate, at least as a minimum, for the rest of the populace?

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2000

I've said it before and I'll say it again ... the ONLY decent health care I have ever received in my life was from military doctors.

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2000

Jim Howard wrote:

"Why not take that wealth we're all creating and instead of giving it to a few thousand really rich folks..."

This kind of thinking is what has made Cuba and North Korea the economic powerhouses they are today.

Dude, are you for real? Political isolation, and not Socialism, is clearly to blame for the widespread poverty in Cuba and North Korea. In addition, nearly all of the world's "economic powerhouses" (Britain, France, Japan, China, etc.) actually do have socialized medicine.

I actually agree that there are major problems with socialized medicine, but I think you're stabbing yourself in the foot by making these ludicrous associations (socialized medicine = socialism = North Korea = extreme poverty).

Many abortions look just like murder to about half the American people, and it's not right or fair to ask this half to subsidize what to them is murder.

This is another distortion--while it's true that about half of all Americans believe that abortion should be illegal, this does not mean that those people consider it to be tantamount to murder. Again, you weaken your own point by backing it up with inaccurate, inflammatory rhetoric.

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2000

"Dude, are you for real? Political isolation, and not Socialism, is clearly to blame for the widespread poverty in Cuba and North Korea."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH ..... the only place that silly idea would fly is on an American college campus. Say that in Russia or the former Warsaw Pac countries and you'd be laughed out of the room.

These two countries have one Big Guy who literally calls all the shots. He decides the price of tea, how many yards of cloth will be spun, and how long recess is for all the third graders. You can see what you get as a result.

"and the US Military, which is just about as opposite of communist as you can get. " I spent 20 years in the military, and one of the humorous ironies about military life is that it is in fact organized exactly like North Korea or Cuba, with a Big Dog at the top, and a widening pyramid of status as you go down the ranks. It's a good system for war fighting, but a horrible system for creating wealth.

Military health care varies all over the map. I spent 17 years on flying status where I got the best health care that money could buy, including housecalls. When I was assigned to Fort Hood, it took a big drop in quality, but was still better than what the enlisted folks there got. Enlisted people on a big Army post get crappy medical care, if they are lucky enough to get any at all. If you want to see what big government health care would be like, just visit the Fort Hood emergency room on Friday night. And in the military, like all these top down systems, once you get past age 50 then the Big Guy doesn't want to spend anything on you because you are past your prime and therefore of little or no value to The System.

"In addition, nearly all of the world's "economic powerhouses" (Britain, France, Japan, China, etc.) actually do have socialized medicine".

I've lived in Britain and Japan for long periods of time. Both have dual systems, a goverment one for the lower castes, and a private one for the upper castes. I have first hand experience with the medical systems of both of them, and I promise you that you'd hate them. We can do a lot better than those places by encouraging responsibility, competition, and freedom.

If you are the patient in any of these big top-down command systems then you are a supplicant. The Big Guy decides what you will get, and you can like it or lump it. He doesn't care. If you want to live like that, you have a large choice of countries from which to choose. I hope the United States doesn't slide any further in that direction than it already has.

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2000

Jim wrote:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH ..... the only place that silly idea would fly is on an American college campus. Say that in Russia or the former Warsaw Pac countries and you'd be laughed out of the room. Actually, I'm not a kid, and I have ventured from college campuses once or twice in my life...in fact, I've traveled extensively in the Eastern Bloc, both before and after the fall of the socialist system, and have many Russian friends. Different Eastern Bloc countries have obviously fared differently in the wake of the transition from Socialism, which goes to show that the issue far is more complicated than one economic system being "good for people" and another being "bad for people."

These two countries have one Big Guy who literally calls all the shots. He decides the price of tea, how many yards of cloth will be spun, and how long recess is for all the third graders. You can see what you get as a result.

Yes, but dictatorships are certainly not exclusive to socialist societies. The Philippines, Haiti, and many other always-capitalist nations have similar legacies of crushing poverty thanks to their dictators.

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2000

What you are describing is a dictatorship, Jim, which is a form of government rule that has flourished since long before socialism was even a theory.

And yes, as I mentioned, a dual healthcare policy is what I would favor - choice for those who can pay for a choice, but a minimum right to some healthcare - as crap as military healthcare may be for low payscale families who can't wave their rank around, it's still better than the NOTHING you current can get if you are a low income civilian with no insurance and aren't on welfare with Medicaid.

What would you have them do? Seriously... the options are quit work so the government WILL provide for you, or go with no healthcare when you need it, and comfort yourself with the fact that at least you aren't getting that crappy socialized healthcare some countries have to put up with?

Let's see.. folks voluntarily going for full government financial support, or running around untreated until they are a large health expensive health problem rather than a small one - or the evils of some form of socialized medicine to prevent those larger problems.

I favor practical return for expense over ideologies any day.

-- Anonymous, June 22, 2000

on the subject of Cuban health care, the World Bank just did a study (it was reported on the news not 3 days ago) and found it was slightly better than the United States. This was based not just on the quality of care but how available it was to the whole populace and how happy the patients were with their care. This in a country that is subject to an American embargo on medical supplies (from what I understand).

Apparently that Big Guy did at least one thing right there.

number 1 was France with Italy 2nd or something like that.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

Um, I'm not siding with Jim or anything, but do you really think a Cuban is going to complain about Castro's health system? He'd go in for a tooth extraction and end up with no legs.

No, I question the liberty there to speak freely about problems. America has the best health care in the world. That's why foriegn leaders always end up here when they're sick-- like King Hussein of Jordon.

Nevertheless, the financial side of health care can and should be improved.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

Foreign leaders come here because they are very rich and that helps in the US where it doesn't in France. They can pay the zillions of bucks that they need to get all the CAT scans they want and they'll be on the top of the list instead of the medicare patient who worked all their lives and has a complicated condition that a specialist won't look at because they can't pay. Our health system may be the most advanced and of the best quality, I wouldn't argue with that. But it comes at a price to the general population, which I think everyone has noted on this thread.

And I wouldn't want to live in Cuba either. But universal health care was/is a priority there in a way it isn't here. This is not true of all countries controlled by a dicator.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

"What you are describing is a dictatorship, Jim, which is a form of government rule that has flourished since long before socialism was even a theory."

There is no difference betwen dictatorship and socialism. All socialism does is try and perswade people to give up their freedoms voluntarily rather than just taking them all at once. The bottom line is still a top down command system that produces misery and dispair for all but the ruling elite. At a certain level of socialism people will stop having kids. Keep turning up the socialist dial and the socialists will build a wall around their country to keep their own people from escaping.

"What would you have them do? Seriously... the options are quit work so the government WILL provide for you, or go with no healthcare when you need it..."

As I said in my first post, I agree that we need a health insurance system in this country that covers people who have the jobs that don't now include health insurance. I just know that we can do a lot better than forcing people into a crappy English/Fort Hood style Giant HMO. Let's give them a system in which they are customers, not suplicants. A system such as the one enjoyed by Congress, the civil service, and the President. Let's try and apply some new thinking to these problems rather than settling for the tired old methods of the old world.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

Jim Howard said, "No tax money should go to abortions except in rare cases of real medical need. Many abortions look just like murder to about half the American people, and it's not right or fair to ask this half to subsidize what to them is murder."

I would rather pay for a woman to choose to abort than pay for the resultant child for 18 years. I'm pro-choice, perhaps obviously, but another part of my motivation here is that abortion is the cheaper alternative. If a woman can't afford the time and money for an abortion for herself, can she afford pre-natal care for the fetus? I would quibble with Jim's statistic that a full half of the citizenry think abortion is murder, but I'll go along with it enough to assert that similarly, the other half of the population should not have to support children whom their mothers would have chosen not to bear.

Any state influence on birth control makes it population control. China's one-child-per-family policy dictates that the state pay for contraceptives and sterilization; the policy also dictates that women not have choices about using contraceptives, being sterilized, or having abortions. U.S. refusal to fund abortions for women receiving state aid strikes me as ethically the same: it strips women of choice.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

Lisa, there really isn't a problem finding homes for kids not wanted by their mothers. Any child not aborted can be adopted, there are long waiting lists. This is one case where conservatives have put their money where their mouth is, by privately funding many programs to assist women in bringing their babies to full term and placing them in safe and loving situations.

In my case, I can accept early term abortions with some discomfort, but once the child is six months or so past conception then he or she is a living person, and I can't help but think that this little person would choose to be born if you asked him or her.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

Jim wrote: All socialism does is try and perswade people to give up their freedoms voluntarily rather than just taking them all at once. The bottom line is still a top down command system that produces misery and dispair for all but the ruling elite. At a certain level of socialism people will stop having kids.

If this is the case, then why did the Russian people give the Communist Party candidate in the last presidential election 30% of the vote (and the winning candidate Putin was an ex-KGB agent)? And why does the Communist Party have the largest proportion of seats in the democratically elected parliament?

And at what point is it, exactly, that people living under a Socialist regime stop having kids? It didn't happen within Russia's 70+ years of Socialism, although the birthrate did plunge dramatically after the transition to Capitalism.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

I think the Russian people look nostalgically at communism because their current system is chaotic, so it's easy to view the past, nasty as it might have been, through rose colored glasses.

In Britain, those with the financial resources go to private docs rather than NHS.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

I don't know if I would call longing for a time when 40+% of the population wasn't living in poverty looking through rose-colored glasses. I think it's entirely reasonable to value a full stomach over political freedom.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

"I think it's entirely reasonable to value a full stomach over political freedom. "

A. Hitler, 1938

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

The USSR was corrupt and Russia is corrupt. I think the people are frightened by making their own choices, and the transition from totalitarianism to democracy is inevitably difficult.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

Yes, I know there are long waiting lists for infants. That's just swell. But the fact remains that should a woman rather abort than bear and keep, or bear and adopt, that option should be hers.

(I deleted two paragraphs because this thread is interesting enough on its own without debating reproductive rights.)

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

re health care.

The world health report was just revealed:

#1 health care in the world is France. Canada came in at #30, and the US at #37. It is kind of interesting to see how they came up with these findings... Report (new window)

Having met many of the villagers (and I don't just mean here in the states, but back home in Canada as well), I have pretty much decided that I don't want them having a hand in raising my children.

I am a hypocrite though, because I would like to see a little more of the 'it takes a village' attitude when it comes to pregnant teenagers - a little less judgement, and a little more assistance. Ideally, I wish there would be less 'just enough' welfare, and more money upfront for education, so that they can break the welfare cycles.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

Instead of assistance to pregnant teens, I'd like to see more prevention. And the whole idea of a "cycle of welfare" seems to remove the personal accountability from people to society. When you have families of infants, 14 y.o. mothers, and 32 y.o. grandmothers, something's seriously awry.

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

Um, "instead of"? How about "along with"?

-- Anonymous, June 23, 2000

An aside regarding Lisa's mention of China's one child policy:

Most Chinese seem to want a boy if they can only have one child. Lots of girl babies are murdered (and I don't mean abortions). This is also why most (if not all) Western -adopted, Chinese-born babies are girls.

One loophole in the policy is that farmers have always been exempted from the policy because their children are their labor force.

A little known loophole is that any couple who are both only children can have as many kids as they want. There may yet be a population explosion in China.

-- Anonymous, June 24, 2000

I have absolutely nothing of any value to contribute to this discussion, but I just feel that I would be remiss if I did not point out the obvious on Jim Howard's last post responding to Jen: TOTAL BURN!!! *LOL*

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2000

Re: "TOTAL BURN!!! *LOL*". No, not really.

Aside from the fact that bringing Hitler into the debate instantly kills it without actually progressing it, Jim was, I think, incorrectly interpreting what Jen's been saying.

As I understood it, her comment was an observation of the simple fact that it's human to value short-term survival needs more readily than people tend to think about subtler concepts such as their freedom. Especially when they're hungry. She wasn't promoting the idea that freedom is less important, only that it's not what people are likely to worry about when there's no food to eat. That's exactly why dictators can come to power.

Jim's retort wasn't particularly relevant to her point.

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2000

For those who are not familiar with the diary community's conventions:

There is a tradition that when anyone mentions the word "Hitler" the debate stops there, because the concept of Hitler carries such emotional baggage for most people that it is essentially impossible for any sort of rational discussion to progress from there.

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2000

How bizarre. I'm glad that on the Well, the "online community" where I talk with people about this stuff, there are jokes about how early in a topic someone can mention Nazis, but the discussion continues.

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2000

Jennifer, the internet custom that mentioning Hitler ends a thread is called "Godwin's Law" ( see http://www.faqs .org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/. Note also "Quirk's Exception", which I cleverly avoided ;)

-- Anonymous, June 26, 2000

So, if someone mentions John Hawkins in a discussion about slavery does that end the thread?

-- *hmph!* thought not --

-- Anonymous, June 27, 2000