Skip to main content

View Diary: Why This New Facebook Meme of Drug-Testing Welfare Recipients is 100% Wrong (229 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Kill the poor! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    opinionated, pale cold, Matt Z, Debby

    And the most fun part of your argument is that it that if someone receiving government assistance is found to have done drugs, smokes, had a pet, had a child, drank alcohol - we get to take everything they won and throw them out into the street. Even with their kids!

    Fuck the poor.

    •  there is a reason (0+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      Hidden by:
      Puck Goodfellow

      http://www.census.gov/...

      birth rate for women 15 to 50
      years old receiving public assistance income in the last 12
      months was 155 births per 1,000
      women, about three times the rate
      for women not receiving public
      assistance (53 births per 1,000
      women).

      Part of the reason why people are in poverty is that they are having kids which they can not afford to take care of.

      If a parent can not take care of their children they should not have custody.

      •  Another one. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nickinnewyork, Debby

        Charming aren't you?

        Fuddle Duddle--- Pierre Trudeau.... Canadian politics at......A Creative Revolution

        by pale cold on Thu Jun 09, 2011 at 08:27:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Hey, Mr. Conclusion (3+ / 0-)

        Ms. Premise here...just a thought..

        Did you correlate any information about how many planned parenthood clinics have been shut down in poorer areas, and how available family planning services are to poor women?

        No?

        Didn't think so.

        You might find that people are NOT in poverty because they have kids..they have kids because they are in poverty.

        Please remember to appropriately bag up all your Republican trash and leave it in an approved receptacle on the curb.

        •  So (0+ / 0-)

          your argument is that the chicken came first than the egg mmmm how interesting.  

          Ofc in this particular situation prevailing evidence points to the opopsite.

          Ofc you will never bother to actually look up any information :) or even bother to read the clif notes on any actual research.  Try and be informed and do a little research first thanks ta.

          •  oh dear (0+ / 0-)

            You've shot the "evidence" gun at the wrong person.  Did you really mean to claim that there is evidence for your ridiculous statement out there?  Please produce it.

            And in case you really are that dim -  your birth statistics numbers say nothing about cause and effect.

            •  Here is a nice (0+ / 0-)

              brief article.  Which summarizes  a good bit of  the current/modren research into the topic.

              http://www.stanford.edu/...

              If you actually bother to read the article (which I doubt you will as evident by your absolute refusal to inform yourself so far) you will notice one of the fundamental assumptions is that children are a consumer or resources and have massive opportunity/direct costs with them.

              Please as a general note id like to point out if someone makes a claim its not always up to them to prove it. If it were every single time any statement is made you'd have to spend 10x the time citing it.  It really speeds up communication if doubters actually choose to inform themselves and do some educational research on their own time instead of "nanananan i dont think your right nananana"

              •  Nice try (0+ / 0-)

                I have played this game before.  If someone is pestering you to explain something, you can casually toss the biggest most incomprehensible document at them and walk away confident that they will never get through it.

                Please as a general note id like to point out if someone makes a claim its not always up to them to prove it

                That depends on what the claim is.  If you are claiming the sky is blue, then no, you don't need to provide proof.  If you are claiming something more complicated, and much more controversial, then yes, you DO need to back it up with something solid.  If you are making an extraordinary claim, then you need extraordinary evidence.

                So, I've read this article you've produced as evidence of your claim, and I find that the authors examine the issue, but they carefully refuse to draw the conclusions you'd like them to draw.

                From the abstract:  

                We find that these theories are
                not as robust as is commonly believed. That is, several special assumptions
                are needed to generate the negative relationship. Not all assumptions are
                equally plausible. Such findings will be useful to distinguish alternative theories.
                We conclude that further research along these lines is needed.
                In
                the end, we cannot offer a clear answer to our own question, but we hope that
                the ideas here will stimulate further research leading to a better understanding
                of fertility decision-making.
                In some ways, the analysis in this paper raises more questions than it answers.
                It points to several directions for further research, both theoretical as well as empirical.

                So, to revisit your original comment -  your statement was that poor people should not be allowed to do drugs, to smoke, to have pets or children.  In your wonderful world, Joe loses his job (perhaps because the banksters have destroyed the world economy)..his UI runs out because his shitheel conservative pols cut the benefits, and if he has to go on food stamps to feed his family, he must first get rid of all his pets, swear to never smoke or drink again, and hand his children over to social services.

                Nice.  And you're justifying it based on some student's research paper from Standford that attempts to explore reasons that poor people have more children, and refuses to draw any conclusions from the research.

                Don't bother responding.  I think I've had my quota of reviewing cruel social engineering ideas cooked up by bastards for this week.

                •  Im glad you at least looked at the article (0+ / 0-)

                  But you missed a couple of points.

                  1) Very importantly this was not done by students. Its hosted on Stanford webby but for example Michele Tertilt  is a professor not a student. The same goes for the other authors.

                  2) " If you are claiming something more complicated, and much more controversial, then yes, you DO need to back it up with something solid.  If you are making an extraordinary claim, then you need extraordinary evidence."  Yes and no.  It still has value to educate yourself.

                  3) Their refusal to make a conclusion was on which economic model is correct. They however consistently used the assumption that I mentioned previously. That "children are a consumer or resources and have massive opportunity/direct costs with them."

                  4)" UI runs out because his shitheel conservative pols cut the benefits, and if he has to go on food stamps to feed his family, he must first get rid of all his pets, swear to never smoke or drink again, and hand his children over to social services. "

                  I agree with all of the above except the last bit taking away somones kids for falling on hard times would just make the economic cost higher on society.  + You should be required to be on birth control. However the last bit should come in if you violate the above ones. If you unable to take care of yourself and your family it is immoral to create more of a burden which others must take care of for you.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site