Ship of Fools: Won't somebody think of the children?

Thread: Won't somebody think of the children? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029263

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

We've all heard the benefits debate done to death.

Right: "We shouldn't be giving benefits to people who are perfectly capable of work. It's not fair on the other people who work hard."

Left: "But there aren't enough jobs for everyone / most benefits subsidise low wages / people struggle to work for various reasons etc.

However, it seems to me that the part of this discussion which is often conspicuously absent is that of children. We seem to have this discussion only ever in the context of responsible grown-ups, rarely thinking of the impact that government policy has on their children.

I have some sympathy with the conservative view that if someone chooses not to work, then the state shouldn't support them. However, if that person has kids, then it's a different kettle of fish. To say to the parent "we're not supporting you" is to say to the child "we're not supporting you either".

If we, as a society genuinely want to make sure that our children are properly fed, clothed, housed, educated and cared for, then it seems there are only two ways to do this within our existing societal system. Either give the parents the money and trust them to care for the children, or go nanny state and give them food vouchers or even take their children away if they can't afford to care for their children properly.

The right evidently doesn't like the former, but it would probably like the latter less. So, it seems that the consequence of the decisions that our government makes when it cuts benefits is to simply not support these children, essentially blaming them for their parents own bad choices or failures.

So why are children always so absent from discussions about benefits, when it seems to me that they should be central to the debate? And how can we as a society care for all our children best?

Posted by Mili (# 3254) on :

Children do come into it from the right's point of view when they start accusing people (usually single mothers) of having children in order to receive child support. I'm sure there are a minority of parents who do have more children to milk the system, even when they aren't doing a great job of caring for the ones they have, however historically people with less money have had more children than the wealthy regardless of if there was welfare or not.

Governments of a variety of stripes have tried to enforce policies to encourage middle class and wealthy parents to reproduce more and the working class and 'underclass' to have less children. Sometimes using draconian measures like forced sterilisation.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mili:
Children do come into it from the right's point of view when they start accusing people (usually single mothers) of having children in order to receive child support.

Sure, but they never seem to get any further than that. They don't ask the question "seeing as these children do actually exist and it's our responsibility as a society to care for them, what's the best way to support these children?".

The fact that the whole point the parents actually receive child support in the first place (the money is meant to help support the child, hence its name) is usually conveniently ignored. It's as if the right see the money as solely for the parent to spend on booze and fags (or whatever), and forget that it's actually meant to be spent on the child (and usually is?).

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

The problem is that money is fungible. You could take the cash from little Billy and spend it on gin. Which is why benefits tend to be food stamps or housing vouchers rather than money.
An allied question would be women's health. If that fetus is so extraordinarily valuable, you would think that pre-natal support would be a given.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The problem is that money is fungible. You could take the cash from little Billy and spend it on gin. Which is why benefits tend to be food stamps or housing vouchers rather than money.

It seems that the affluent Right hates the nanny state when it tries to nanny their own, but has no problem if it's nannying the ignorant lower classes [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The problem is that money is fungible. You could take the cash from little Billy and spend it on gin. Which is why benefits tend to be food stamps or housing vouchers rather than money.

And people who are so inclined sell their food stamps (or things purchased with them) for hard cash at a discount, in order to be able to purchase other items.

Some people do it because food stamps aren't flexible enough to match their lives, and whilst little Billy does indeed need food, there's a couple of days of food at home, but his mom needs gas to get to work right now.

Some people do it because they are alcoholics, drug addicts, or just assholes. These people are very much in the minority. They exist, but they shouldn't drive policy.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:
Originally posted by Mili:
Children do come into it from the right's point of view when they start accusing people (usually single mothers) of having children in order to receive child support.
Sure, but they never seem to get any further than that. They don't ask the question "seeing as these children do actually exist and it's our responsibility as a society to care for them, what's the best way to support these children?".

But DO they think that it's our responsibility as a society to care for them? Thatcher famously said there's no such thing as society. The Right, as far as I can tell, doesn't think we have any collective responsibilities, only personal responsibilities. And since it's not my responsibility to care for your child, but yours, then there is no need for the government to do anything to help it.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:
Originally posted by Mili:
Children do come into it from the right's point of view when they start accusing people (usually single mothers) of having children in order to receive child support.
Sure, but they never seem to get any further than that. They don't ask the question "seeing as these children do actually exist and it's our responsibility as a society to care for them, what's the best way to support these children?".
But DO they think that it's our responsibility as a society to care for them? Thatcher famously said there's no such thing as society. The Right, as far as I can tell, doesn't think we have any collective responsibilities, only personal responsibilities. And since it's not my responsibility to care for your child, but yours, then there is no need for the government to do anything to help it.

No one's actually come out and said it yet, but I suspect that deep down they think that children are a luxury commodity that you should only have if you can afford them without any suport from the State. Like a top of the range car or a new handbag.

And, should you start off the process being able to afford kids, but end up not being able to due to a change of circumstances, then that's your tough luck. Hasn't your father in law got a castle you can go and live in for a bit? (IDS * cough * IDS. Whose unemployment experience consisted of getting support from his multi-millionare extended family. Because everyone has those).

Tubbs

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
No one's actually come out and said it yet, but I suspect that deep down they think that children are a luxury commodity that you should only have if you can afford them without any suport from the State.

Throwing around words like "luxury" and "commodity" might be a touch pejorative, but that aside, there's nothing deep down about it. The idea that people shouldn't have children that they can't afford is regularly and commonly expressed. It is present in the recent announcement that child benefit is to be limited to two children. It is present every time the tabloids drag out some massive family as a way of pointing the finger at "benefit scroungers".

Here, for example, is Grant Shapps MP a couple of years ago:

quote:
‘If you are a working family and you have another child, you know it’s going to mean quite a severe impact on your living costs.

Yet in the welfare system, it’s almost turned on its head, so additional children are actually recognised, with no limit.

‘We need to create a choice for people on welfare which mirrors that which millions of people in work who aren’t receiving state support have to make. It’s only fair to the taxpayer.’

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
No one's actually come out and said it yet, but I suspect that deep down they think that children are a luxury commodity that you should only have if you can afford them without any suport from the State. Like a top of the range car or a new handbag.

Children are more akin to a wasteful product, like plastic water bottles. Shouldn't have them if you don't need them. They are a drain on our natural resources and we've too damn many of them to sustain.
The rich are worse than the poor, because they consume more resources with fewer people.
So children are a bane, not boon.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The problem is that money is fungible. You could take the cash from little Billy and spend it on gin. Which is why benefits tend to be food stamps or housing vouchers rather than money.
It seems that the affluent Right hates the nanny state when it tries to nanny their own, but has no problem if it's nannying the ignorant lower classes

I think the State should have no part in what people do with their own resources. At the same time, I think the State has every right to tell people what they can and can't do with the State's resources.

Or to put it another way, the one who pays the piper calls the tune.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

But the State is not separate from the people, it is the (drat, mind gone blank for word meaning that it is the product of the people, grown from them, expressing their nature). We don't live with some superhuman power running our lives, though the current government seems to think they are it. We are the state, the state is us, all of us, rich, poor, in work, out of work, well, sick, bright, challenged in thinking. We've grown out of the feudal middle ages. We don't depend on our "betters", we depend on us. That's why we pay taxes, isn't it? Those of us who don't weasel out of it, and think we should get to pick and choose who gets support from our expensively bought charity* because they fit some fairy story picture of deserving.
*As in only make donations at expensive dinners with goody bags.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
No one's actually come out and said it yet, but I suspect that deep down they think that children are a luxury commodity that you should only have if you can afford them without any suport from the State. Like a top of the range car or a new handbag.
Children are more akin to a wasteful product, like plastic water bottles. Shouldn't have them if you don't need them. They are a drain on our natural resources and we've too damn many of them to sustain.
The rich are worse than the poor, because they consume more resources with fewer people.
So children are a bane, not boon.

This may be true, though I think there's a lot to take issue with.

But the primary question about welfare etc. is this:

What are you going to do now that the children exist? Stuff them back where they came from?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

LC,

I love children. I think they should be treated well, given the education, love and the fighting chance they deserve.
This doesn't change a word of what I said. Life is not some perfect balance. Outcome does not justify the circumstances of it creation. A child who is born of rape does not make that rape a good thing, a justifiable thing or in any way acceptable.
A parent may, and should love that child as if it were born of love. But this changes nothing of the experience of rape.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

But practically speaking, that's the question to face. The children are here. What do we do with them now?

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The problem is that money is fungible. You could take the cash from little Billy and spend it on gin. Which is why benefits tend to be food stamps or housing vouchers rather than money.
An allied question would be women's health. If that fetus is so extraordinarily valuable, you would think that pre-natal support would be a given.

It's money in the UK - I think pregnant women are entitled to vouchers for milk (and maybe folic acid supplements? not sure on that) but that's it. Housing Benefit is paid straight to the landlord so no need for housing vouchers. All personal benefits are paid in cash though. Child Benefit is means tested but at a reasonably high level - it's not a universal benefit, but most parents on an average income here with children in full-time education get it.

Can shippies outside the US and UK say how it works for them? It would be interesting to know whether cash or vouchers is the most common option.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
But practically speaking, that's the question to face. The children are here. What do we do with them now?

That's exactly the question I'm trying to ask, LC. Saying that people shouldn't have kids if they can't afford them is all well and fair enough. But if they do, the parent is to blame, not the kid. Punishing the kid because we disapprove of the parent's bad choice is evil.

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I think the State should have no part in what people do with their own resources.

This is all well and good for grown ups. I can almost swallow the right-wing rhetoric, if the world was a world where everyone was a responsible grown up.

But what kids? What about people with mental health problems? What about people with learning difficulties? The state steps in because not all of us are responsible grown-ups. And yeah, the state isn't 'other'. The state is us.

What a parent does with their resources impacts their children, if they have any, for better and for worse. If we as a wider society actually give a shit about that child, then we should want to make sure the State is able to support the parent in the right way to care for that child, and if they're not, do something about it. But yeah, as mousethief said, if. Now I'm wondering whether the right actually does give a shit - honestly, I always thought they did, but just had a different solution to helping them. I'm beginning to doubt that.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I have some sympathy with the conservative view that if someone chooses not to work, then the state shouldn't support them.

I don't have a lot of sympathy with the view that work for money is the only way a person can contribute to a society.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Work definitely cuts into my days.

Most of our western countries require immigration because we aren't producing enough future workers and tax payers. But we want people who can work, not dependent babies.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

However, it seems to me that the part of this discussion which is often conspicuously absent is that of children. We seem to have this discussion only ever in the context of responsible grown-ups, rarely thinking of the impact that government policy has on their children.

I have some sympathy with the conservative view that if someone chooses not to work, then the state shouldn't support them. However, if that person has kids, then it's a different kettle of fish. To say to the parent "we're not supporting you" is to say to the child "we're not supporting you either".

...So why are children always so absent from discussions about benefits, when it seems to me that they should be central to the debate? And how can we as a society care for all our children best?

The biggest irony IMHO is that (at least in the US) the same folks (conservatives) who are making this "be responsible" argument and enacting policies that inevitably impact children more than anyone (children under 18 are the largest demographic living in poverty in US) are the same ones who are the most vehemently "pro-life". Pro-unborn life, it would seem, but not much else.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Aaauuugghhhh! I'm conservative, at least by most of y'all's definitions! And I think you must know me better than to imagine I don't give a shit about children! Or immigrants, or the poor, or...

Seriously, the Ship is getting to the point where certain issues (notably this one, conservative/liberal) have only the One True Answer™ and no discussion is possible anymore under the avalanche of "me too, me too". I've tried; but it's a rare bird indeed who can get past the knee jerk political reaction to discuss the logic of a topic, whether agreeing or disagreeing. (Though comfortingly, when I DO come across one of those rare birds they are often the leftest of the left, so there's hope in the old boat yet.)

I so miss Erin. She might think you were a lunatic from batshit fucked-up-dom, but she'd bite in the butt anyone who tried to simply roll over you by sheer force of numbers, without bothering to engage brain and grapple with the issue--or anybody who made massive generalizations about a group of people, some of whom were actually on the thread itself saying the opposite. But now I feel bloody invisible. Lately I feel like I'm in a room with a bunch of people going "La la la LA, I haven't heard a word you said!"

Sigh. Sorry, folks, I will now withdraw to the rock I slithered out from. [Razz]

Carry on abusing conservatives, we're all the same.

[ 13. August 2015, 04:25: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

Sorry, Lamb. Lazy posting on my part. Obviously it's not *all* conservatives. And I've been the first to howl when similar generalizations are made of evangelicals, so I shoulda been better.

Let me try again: I find ironic that there is a significant group of outspoken conservative (in the political sense) Americans who are passionately pro-life (as am I, fwiw) but also decry the sorts of anti-poverty measures we're discussing here-- suggesting they are pro-unborn life, but don't care so much about toddlers or anyone else post-utero. It's not all conservative Americans, but it is a significant chunk of the ones who are getting in front of microphones these days.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Housing Benefit is paid straight to the landlord so no need for housing vouchers.

No, it's not. It's paid in cash and has been for some time. Which is a pain in the arse to landlords who are willing to take vulnerable tenants because they can't be sure that they'll get the rent. This, in turn, make landlords reluctant to rent to those people which makes it harder for people in difficulty to find accommodation.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

True for private landlords. Council tenants get the money paid directly into their rent account.

Problem with all this (and food vouchers etc.) is the balance between "ensuring that the money goes on the right things" and "teaching people how to take responsibility for their finances".

On paper it looks fine to pay these benefits in cash (although I think they actually get paid into your bank account). Problem is, if you are on the breadline and another cost comes up, or if you are just plain disorganised, that won't happen. On the other hand, making sure the rent gets paid automatically distances the tenant from the real situation and encourages dependence. I don't know the answer to this.

[ 13. August 2015, 07:00: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Aaauuugghhhh! I'm conservative, at least by most of y'all's definitions! And I think you must know me better than to imagine I don't give a shit about children! Or immigrants, or the poor, or...

Apologies, LC. I had no desire to just make a conservative-bashing thread, and sorry for my participation in it. The reason I started it was the frustration of listening to yet another left/right discussion (about tax credits) where neither person even mentioned the role of children in the mix. I was equally frustrated with both of them - kids seem to me to be a large part of the discussion, but are routinely ignored.

Of course I believe you give a shit. That was my starting point, that everyone cares, but just has a different answer. But I'm struggling to see what the conservative answer is - other than just some vague trickle-down benefit that we hope reaches the kids in the end. So I'm genuinely interested in your answer to your own question. Seeing as these kids DO exist (regardless of whether or not one thinks their parents should have had them or not), what is the best way to support them? I get that the Right thinks the answer isn't just to give their parents money. So what should we do? I'd also love to hear other conservatives' answers to that question, and their reasons for their views.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

My mum told me that children don't ask to be born. If they have the misfortune to be mistreated or abandoned by irresponsible parents, none of that is their fault. I think you have to start there. Here are just a few quotes, amongst many, about how a civilised society should treat its weaker members.

quote:
"The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children." Dietrich Bonhoeffer

"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. " ~ Last Speech of Hubert H. Humphrey

"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Ghandi

There is nothing wrong with arguing in favour of the need for personal responsibility in terms of fair treatment of adults. But if that argument produces policies which are indifferent to children, then it has been taken too far.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
But the State is not separate from the people, it is the (drat, mind gone blank for word meaning that it is the product of the people, grown from them, expressing their nature). We don't live with some superhuman power running our lives, though the current government seems to think they are it. We are the state, the state is us, all of us, rich, poor, in work, out of work, well, sick, bright, challenged in thinking. We've grown out of the feudal middle ages. We don't depend on our "betters", we depend on us.

I disagree. Yes, we've grown out of the feudal ages, but only in the sense that these days we get the chance every four or five years to decide which specific individuals will control our lives.

If the State was us then we'd have the right to stroll into Westminster and vote on whatever matter happened to be under discussion at the time. If State funds were ours then we'd be able to withdraw a few thousand quid from the Treasury to pay for a holiday. That we can't do either of those things without being locked up shows that the State is indeed a separate entity.

quote:
That's why we pay taxes, isn't it?

No, we pay taxes because the State tells us to. As has been the case since feudal times.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Please don't go away Lamb Chopped. You usually talk more sense than the rest of us. Would it be better if I say a few controversial things that might draw some of the fire you feel you are getting?

I'm not a conservative. I'm not a socialist either. I don't see why we should be expected to choose a package of views rather than make up our own minds what we think about each different issue.

Anyway, here goes.

First of all, am I the only person who feels an instinctive suspicious reaction to a question "Won't somebody think of the children?". 'Think of the children' is so often used as an emotional tear-jerker to get us to suspend judgement, a dialectic ploy to shift the balance of argument in favour the person making whatever point they are making, a tool for subliminal persuasion.

Second, do we all agree that everybody's children are collectively the state or society's responsibility? I don't. Yes, there may be a few situations when the law has to intervene. However, the state or 'society' would be a hopeless parent. Everybody's baby is nobody's. As a general principle, most of the time, we have to accept that the parents you are born with are a blessing or a curse (or often a mixture) that you have to bear?

Even if your parents are pretty irresponsible, it's very, very unlikely that the local Children's Services department would have done the job better.

Third, a more practical one, I'm fairly sure the discussion on this thread is being skewed by people not entirely appreciating the extent to which each country not only does its social services differently, but founds them on different assumptions.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

One day when we are old who is going to be doing the work that earns the wages from which taxes are taken to pay for our pensions and health care? Private pension funds won't exist without an active economy so workers will be needed and they are today's children.

There. A utilitarian argument in favour of children.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

More personally, when you are old, a younger person is going to be pushing your wheelchair. For sure your nurses and doctors will be younger than you. It would be nice if they were all well-educated, thoroughly trained, and sufficiently well-compensated that they didn't feel the need to take out their frustrations upon you, the helpless geezer in Depends.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Thanks, folks. I'm not going away, I just went to bed. I now feel much better. [Biased]

One possibility that causes trouble is that some people lean toward having the state do it all (whatever "all" includes as far as taking care of people in need) while others distrust the state and take things into their own, local hands. The people I come from are mostly of this second type. We have watched the government fuck up things so often and so massively that we prefer to run tutoring centers, start daycares, food pantries, homeless shelters, etc. ourselves--which in practice, means as a church or multi-church project locally. In the case of emergencies further abroad (e.g. Katrina), we donate or send volunteers to help local groups. We certainly don't reject state aid, but we figure the chances are good that it's going to go wrong in some way--either getting so tangled in red tape that the people who need help don't receive it, or else being restricted in such a way that a lot of folks fall through the cracks.

Case in point (just one of zillions): We have a local family--nonchurched if you're wondering--who have three children and are so poor that the father goes out fishing at night in the local rivers, etc. to feed them. Every freaking year the bloody food stamp people send them a letter telling them that they no longer qualify for aid. I then spend 40 hours approximately writing letters, on the phone, etc. gathering data to make an appeal--which we always win, and which reinstates their benefit for another year. At which point we get another letter kicking them off food stamps.

Yes, I put in the hours to get them back on food stamps (cursing the bureaucracy all the while). But I also make excuses to have them over for dinner, send them home with church leftovers (and a face-saving excuse, as they are VERY proud and Dad won't accept food pantry help), and similar. I've brought food in to our after-school tutoring center for similar reasons (child with schizophrenic father who kept losing benefits as his illness meant he didn't comply with reporting etc.). Our host church picks up bakery stuff from a local café for distribution as well as running a food pantry.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
There. A utilitarian argument in favour of children.

In favour of children who will one day grow up to become net contributors to society, sure. But in purely utilitarian terms it's in no way an argument in favour of perpetuating - much less encouraging - a culture of living off the State's teat from birth to death.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Apologies. Computer went wonky. Meant to add:

This kind of local action by conservatives, liberals, whoever, usually flies under the radar. And if a given group is more inclined to start a homeless shelter than to campaign in the media for more government benefits, they are likely to look like they're doing crap all nothing. Because homeless shelters are not usually news.

Which is all to say that just because someone doesn't hit the media, doesn't mean they're not doing anything.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

And now for something completely different (from me, anyway).

I'm all in favor of school-based breakfast, lunch, and basic health clinics. In these cases there is no danger of an addicted or domestically terrorized parent misusing the kids' money for someone else. And I've seen that happen all too often.

We usually have school-supply drives around here that put stuffed backpacks directly into the hands of children. I wouldn't say no to having the state help fund that, if they would (yeah, right). Clothing would be even better, but I don't see a way to make that happen any better than private charities are doing now.

As for children's housing, we're stuck there, because any money provided must come through the parent--and that's where a lot of it gets mishandled. I've thought of having parent-and-child apartment complexes to provide a slightly less crime-ridden environment, but you can't stop adults from inviting in whomever they wish, including abusive boyfriends and drug dealers. And if you tried, you'd simply get people gaming the system ("Oh, I didn't know...") and would have to somehow set up a gatekeeper as well--which would be next to impossible.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm not a conservative. I'm not a socialist either. I don't see why we should be expected to choose a package of views rather than make up our own minds what we think about each different issue.

Preach it!

quote:
First of all, am I the only person who feels an instinctive suspicious reaction to a question "Won't somebody think of the children?". 'Think of the children' is so often used as an emotional tear-jerker to get us to suspend judgement, a dialectic ploy to shift the balance of argument in favour the person making whatever point they are making, a tool for subliminal persuasion.

Nope, I have the same reaction. I didn't mention it here because I felt that goperryrevs did a pretty good job of not going for that emotional button. In general, though, my usual reaction to an appeal to think about children is to start analysing whether it's code for arguing that it's okay to treat adults like shit.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Apologies. Computer went wonky. Meant to add:

This kind of local action by conservatives, liberals, whoever, usually flies under the radar. And if a given group is more inclined to start a homeless shelter than to campaign in the media for more government benefits, they are likely to look like they're doing crap all nothing. Because homeless shelters are not usually news.

Which is all to say that just because someone doesn't hit the media, doesn't mean they're not doing anything.

Absolutely. But the OP seems a bit narrower than just the familiar/ stereotypical "conservatives don't care about kids". The thread is addressing something more specific-- a specific tenet of many/most conservatives that government anti-poverty measures are wrong-- some combination of ineffective, immoral (robbing others), create dependency, reward laziness, etc. Many of those same conservatives will in fact be very involved with private non-profits that do work among the poor or homeless, but eschew any government-funded efforts. Often they choose an organization that they deem to be helping the "worthy poor" or to be creating self-sufficiency over those they see as "merely a handout." The OP is really addressing that particular belief and the gap it creates in terms of the children of the "non-worthy poor".

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
First of all, am I the only person who feels an instinctive suspicious reaction to a question "Won't somebody think of the children?". 'Think of the children' is so often used as an emotional tear-jerker to get us to suspend judgement, a dialectic ploy to shift the balance of argument in favour the person making whatever point they are making, a tool for subliminal persuasion.
Nope, I have the same reaction. I didn't mention it here because I felt that goperryrevs did a pretty good job of not going for that emotional button. In general, though, my usual reaction to an appeal to think about children is to start analysing whether it's code for arguing that it's okay to treat adults like shit.

Thanks Orfeo. I had no intention to be manipulative. I could have just called the thread "State benefits and children" but that would have been boring. It was intended to be a slightly tongue-in-cheek and more interesting title (because it's often used as Enoch described). I always prefer it when people try to be a bit creative and intriguing with their thread titles. And honestly, I'm really not interested in playing on anyone's emotions. I'm interested in understanding different viewpoints and their justifications.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

A thread entitled "state benefits and corporations" might be worthy. The tendency is to label such benefits as tax concessions and grants but it amounts to the same thing. In Canada the money given to oul companies could fund public daycare or make post secondary education free.

We haven't even mentioned money shovelled at military contractors of all types. The issue is one of priorities. We have generally decided that basic education for children is a worthy thing to fund, though this under attack in some places.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Absolutely. But the OP seems a bit narrower than just the familiar/ stereotypical "conservatives don't care about kids". The thread is addressing something more specific-- a specific tenet of many/most conservatives that government anti-poverty measures are wrong-- some combination of ineffective, immoral (robbing others), create dependency, reward laziness, etc. Many of those same conservatives will in fact be very involved with private non-profits that do work among the poor or homeless, but eschew any government-funded efforts. Often they choose an organization that they deem to be helping the "worthy poor" or to be creating self-sufficiency over those they see as "merely a handout." The OP is really addressing that particular belief and the gap it creates in terms of the children of the "non-worthy poor".

True. I wasn't directly addressing the OP in that.

Though I have to say, "But what about the children?" is the single biggest point I hear in my location, whatever's being debated. Maybe it varies regionally? Or maybe its just because the two biggest shitstorms in my political environment have to do with failing public education and with child immigrants/citizen children of illegal immigrants, and so it seems to me to be discussed everywhere.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Though I have to say, "But what about the children?" is the single biggest point I hear in my location, whatever's being debated. Maybe it varies regionally?

That's facinating. As I've said, the only context I ever hear people talk about kids in discussions about benefits is "people shouldn't have kids if they can't afford them" (as if having a child is akin to buying a new TV or a console). I'm geniunely glad they are part of the debate where you are.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Maybe we hear more about them because it looks so freakin' heartless to take a mother away from a three-year-old (via deportation)? Or because school busses leaving the district with the local kids on board (now doomed to a two hour commute) is a really visible ouchy issue?

My son's school is hosting students from a couple of these failed districts. I'm glad we can do it, but man, the poor kids.

Posted by leftfieldlover (# 13467) on :

Regardless of whether or not a family can afford to pay for a child, isn't a major elephant in the room the fact that the planet is getting overcrowded? It really won't be too long before we will be unable to feed ourselves. The current situation of half the world with too much and the other half with nothing, will be long gone. None of us will have anything to eat. Education and contraception must be the way forward and religious organziations must take a lead. But, as has been noted, those children who are here now, with parents who either don't care about them or who have had a change in circumstances, need government help. Whether this should be by taking those children away (fostering? adoption?) or offering extra support, I don't know.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leftfieldlover:
Regardless of whether or not a family can afford to pay for a child, isn't a major elephant in the room the fact that the planet is getting overcrowded?

Not really, no. The total fertility rate (live births per woman) is at or below two in basically all developed countries. This means that the only way these countries add to their populations is either through an increase in lifespan (which is a modest effect) or immigration.

Here is a list I found. The leading western country is France, with 2.08 (unless you want to count Israel as "western"), the US is at 2.01, and the UK at 1.9.

As far as I can see, there is basically no overlap between countries that have the kind of welfare system we're discussing and countries that have a high birthrate.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Scotland's population peaked around 1971, but then started dropping, with concerns about long term implications for care of the elderly etc. Fortunately east European migration has pushed us back up to where we were in 1971, and East Europeans have a slightly higher birthrate once they are here than native born Scots, so our population should be stable at least for the foreseeable future.

Personally, I think immigration is preferable to encouraging bigger families.

No-one has mentioned free school meals, which is a direct benefit for poorer children.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:

No-one has mentioned free school meals, which is a direct benefit for poorer children.

Yes-- very much so. But one that is often criticized by the right, and one that still leaves quite a few gaps. I just finished a week of leading a week-long camp for our church's neighborhood kids, all of whom are living in homes below the poverty level and thereby qualifying for free school breakfast & lunch. But they get no such meals over the weekends (teachers report seeing all sorts of impact from hunger on Mondays-- some have taken to sending home, at their own expense, packages of food on Fridays). And none at all over the long summer. A large component of our camp was simply the simple lunch we gave them each day. Even with that, a good portion of our kids arrived each day w/o having breakfast, so I had to open up early and stock up on some quick-to-dole out breakfast supplies.

In this case, it didn't appear that the problem was lack of parental concern-- at least not judging from the parents who showed up on the last day to express appreciation for this benefit to their kids. It appears to be one of many gaps in the system.

School starts up again Tuesday so the kids are OK-- more or less-- for another 9 months.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leftfieldlover:
Regardless of whether or not a family can afford to pay for a child, isn't a major elephant in the room the fact that the planet is getting overcrowded? It really won't be too long before we will be unable to feed ourselves. The current situation of half the world with too much and the other half with nothing, will be long gone. None of us will have anything to eat. Education and contraception must be the way forward and religious organizations must take a lead. But, as has been noted, those children who are here now, with parents who either don't care about them or who have had a change in circumstances, need government help. Whether this should be by taking those children away (fostering? adoption?) or offering extra support, I don't know.

No one who's driven through the gorgeous and largely empty American Mid/South/Far West can honestly say we don't have room enough to care for more people properly. (I understand things are different in other countries.) This means we Americans in particular will be without excuse if we don't get it right caring for the children who are already born. Of course the usual issues are going to make doing this a burden--spats over water, lobbyists about farm subsidies, screwed up foster case systems... Bleah. I guess there's nothing to do but set to and start dealing with our own little corners and the children in them.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller
But they get no such meals over the weekends (teachers report seeing all sorts of impact from hunger on Mondays-- some have taken to sending home, at their own expense, packages of food on Fridays). And none at all over the long summer.

In our town (and perhaps neighboring towns) there is a program called Micah's Backpack. The principals of the schools give the names of the children who receive free meals at school. People donate food, and a group gets together every week to put food in backpacks to feed the kids through the weekend. The backpacks are taken to the principals' offices in the various schools, and the kids pick them up. It is not obvious that they are being given food.

There is also a system of distributing food over the summer. I don't know the details.

Moo

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

It's sweet, but it's not scalable. It's like when Oprah gives one lucky family a car, or a house, or whatever. It's great for that one family, but does absolutely nothing to improve the lives of all the people who didn't get on Oprah. How willing would they be to prepare backpacks for kids in, oh, say, Baltimore?

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
It's sweet, but it's not scalable. It's like when Oprah gives one lucky family a car, or a house, or whatever. It's great for that one family, but does absolutely nothing to improve the lives of all the people who didn't get on Oprah. How willing would they be to prepare backpacks for kids in, oh, say, Baltimore?

I think it's appropriate for those in Appalachia who can afford it, to give this kind of help to those who need it. We can afford to feed the children around here. We can't afford to feed the children in Baltimore also.

Moreover, we can see where the need is here.

Moo

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
It's sweet, but it's not scalable. It's like when Oprah gives one lucky family a car, or a house, or whatever. It's great for that one family, but does absolutely nothing to improve the lives of all the people who didn't get on Oprah. How willing would they be to prepare backpacks for kids in, oh, say, Baltimore?
I think it's appropriate for those in Appalachia who can afford it, to give this kind of help to those who need it. We can afford to feed the children around here. We can't afford to feed the children in Baltimore also.

Moreover, we can see where the need is here.

Moo

Yes. But if all your neighbors in Baltimore or Appalachia are as poor as you are, the amount of aid they can give you is apt to be limited. And if you live in Beverly Hills, you're not going to see too much need-- even if it's just a few miles away in Compton. Or maybe they do venture down to skid row and find themselves daunted by the sight of 17,000 homeless families, children living on the street-- what can one person do? And then there's the problem brought up in the OP, of charitable aid being limited to those deemed the "worthy poor" and often not the children of the "unworthy". Which is precisely why government aid is so necessary-- to get to those we don't see.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I live in a university town in Appalachia. We are an oasis of prosperity in a desert of poverty. We act to relieve the need we see. Do you think we shouldn't?

Moo

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I live in a university town in Appalachia. We are an oasis of prosperity in a desert of poverty. We act to relieve the need we see. Do you think we shouldn't?

Moo

Of course not! The Micah's backpack program indeed sounds wonderful, and similar to the program I was running last week. I'm just referring again back to the question of the OP, which was about government-funded assistance. Of course we should care and do all we can as individuals and as churches and non-profit charitable organizations. But the question was about the complaints of (some) conservatives specific to government-funded programs. Often these small-government conservatives will use the charitable actions of churches, individuals, and non-profits as a reason why the government doesn't need/shouldn't get involved in caring for the poor and their children. My point was even though individuals, churches and non-profits can and are doing wonderful work in their own communities, there are always gaps they either can't or won't fill-- the people they don't see because of their geographic isolation, or the people they don't help because they (or their parents) are deemed "unworthy". That is one (among several) reasons I believe it is important to have a government safety net that provides some level of assistance-- even to the "unworthy"-- not instead of, but along side of, the efforts of churches, non-profits and individuals.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

So you do not hold with those people who say that if only the Church would step up and feed the hungry, clothe the naked etc. then no government assistance would be necessary.
(Nonsense, IMO -- the government is often the only entity than can respond to big crises like Hurricaine Katrina.)

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I don't think anybody here is arguing that we should dump the idea of government aid in favor of private charity only--or vice versa. Where we differ is probably in the direction we naturally incline to. Which is what you want, really--if we were all activists/lobbiers or all do-it-yourselfers, where would the children be? [Razz]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I don't think anybody here is arguing that we should dump the idea of government aid in favor of private charity only--or vice versa.

Possibly not here-- but that's the argument the OP is referring to-- one often made by the GOP-- that caring for the poor is not the government's job, but the Church's. Some have even argued that it's harmful to the Church when the government "does the Church's job." Nonsense of course, as Brenda has pointed out-- but a quite common argument, and therefore part of the overall discussion the OP is addressing.

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Where we differ is probably in the direction we naturally incline to. Which is what you want, really--if we were all activists/lobbiers or all do-it-yourselfers, where would the children be?

Agree!

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Here, the UK, there really has been a move to push support on to the charitable sector, the Big Society idea. It's come back to bite the Government hard recently with the collapse of Kid's Company - which was held up as an example of the Big Society in action, until it failed spectacularly last month.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

it is not clear to what extent it failed owing to the government messing about with the grant either. Which is a problem with will they won't they funding.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

My brother-in-law is the pastor of a church in Texas. I remember during Katrina that all the Texas churches, of all denominations, organized a rota to feed refugees from next-door Louisiana. The Methodists had a week, the Episcopalians had a week, the Lutherans had a week, and so on. Very nice, and there is nothing like a church in the South for cooking up loads of yummy food.
But it was clearly beyond their power to do much more. No denomination had helicopters, or bulldozers, or troops, or search dogs. For that you need the Army Corps of Engineers, or the National Guard. You need the federal government.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
My brother-in-law is the pastor of a church in Texas. I remember during Katrina that all the Texas churches, of all denominations, organized a rota to feed refugees from next-door Louisiana. The Methodists had a week, the Episcopalians had a week, the Lutherans had a week, and so on. Very nice, and there is nothing like a church in the South for cooking up loads of yummy food.
But it was clearly beyond their power to do much more. No denomination had helicopters, or bulldozers, or troops, or search dogs. For that you need the Army Corps of Engineers, or the National Guard. You need the federal government.

Exactly. I really thought Katrina was going to put an end to this ridiculous small government/ private charity argument because the results of that sort of logic were on full, horrific display for all to see. And yet the myth continues.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

Thank you, that's what I meant when I said that local initiatives like the one Moo described, awesome as they are, are not a universal solution. Backpacks can't completely or permanently make up for what is lacking in urban and rural food deserts. They can't make up for stagnant wages and skyrocketing prices and crappy public transit.

Some more pondering let me to: Christians are supposed to feel a duty to the less fortunate, and we see that in action all the time. And there are some people who feel that as citizens, they have a duty to the less fortunate. They act as individuals (some are Christians, some are not), but they also act politically to enlist (coerce, to some) all citizens in this cause through government.

I guess what's puzzling to me is the people who feel a duty to the poor only as Christians, but not as citizens. Is that a consequence of the idea of different duties to different kingdoms / rulers? Is it just, "I've done my bit already"? Is it "Big gummint sux"? Is it just simply every one for themselves in the "real world"?

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

Personally I'm all for a "social market economy" of the Scandinavian and to a lesser degree German kind. And if I have doubts about it, then more about the "market economy" side of things... That said, I find it simplistic to accuse those who lean towards the "cut-throat market economy + charity" side of things of cold-heartedness or incoherence. Optimisation of the common good is not identical with making the life of everybody better, because the latter is generally unachievable. One has to make choices what pros outweigh what cons, and while I tend towards one set of such choices I don't think that other choices are obviously unreasonable or inhumane. There are serious issues with benefit abuse, de-incentivising people, governments taking control too much, etc. I think in the end the common good is better served with more "social security nets", but I do recognise that those opposing have some decent points that should make us cautious.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

And the image of say, the Baptists or the CofE with a fleet of black helicopters is just horrifying.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

I guess what's puzzling to me is the people who feel a duty to the poor only as Christians, but not as citizens. Is that a consequence of the idea of different duties to different kingdoms / rulers? Is it just, "I've done my bit already"? Is it "Big gummint sux"? Is it just simply every one for themselves in the "real world"?

The tl:dr version is people aren't functionally rational.
If you feel there is any duty to the poor, it is more than obvious that private efforts are massively inadequate. With private and public combined efforts failing to meet needs, how is removing any source of aid going to work?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

What does tl:dr mean please? It's not an abbreviation that I've met before.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

too long; didn't read.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Personally I'm all for a "social market economy" of the Scandinavian and to a lesser degree German kind. And if I have doubts about it, then more about the "market economy" side of things... That said, I find it simplistic to accuse those who lean towards the "cut-throat market economy + charity" side of things of cold-heartedness or incoherence. Optimisation of the common good is not identical with making the life of everybody better, because the latter is generally unachievable. One has to make choices what pros outweigh what cons, and while I tend towards one set of such choices I don't think that other choices are obviously unreasonable or inhumane. There are serious issues with benefit abuse, de-incentivising people, governments taking control too much, etc. I think in the end the common good is better served with more "social security nets", but I do recognise that those opposing have some decent points that should make us cautious.

That is a reasonable moderate approach I think. Too often we oscillate between the two on either side of this.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0