|
The kids thing that tends to crop up here every so often is moot since welfare families on average have the same amount or fewer children than others. Many have no children. I think what we tend to look at are the high-profile cases, or maybe it's a media misconception.
I also think there is a wide misconception that those on welfare are happy and comfortable to be there--that they aren't doing anything to get out of it--that they don't care for their children. Little do we hear about the stories of the welfare recipient who, for one reason or another (often beyond their control), lost their job(s) and is struggling to get back on their feet. And then there's the situation where the welfare recipient does have a job but can't afford to make ends meet. Single mothers often fall into this due to lack of quality and affordable childcare.
I've heard about enough regarding "suckling off the teat" and "crotch fruits" without even commenting on the most likely situations. Do you seriously think that everyone on welfare is doing nothing to help themselves or their children? Welfare isn't a long-term state for most recipients. What happens there?
There is no correlation between women having more children and receiving welfare benefits. There is no direct incentive. Often the support one receives from welfare isn't a livable amount. Why would that encourage a family to have more children?
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön
Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
|