Angel Adams, 37 yrs old with 15 kids and complaining about lack of gov't assistance

[Gandalf]

Stop being silly, my views on stories like this are never less than consistent.

I don't think it is the job of society to bail out a woman who cannot stop getting impregnated. Society should perhaps pay for an abortion or two and then sterilise her if she cannot make suitable provisions. Society, which is ordinary taxpayers, has no responsibility to people who have no self responsibility.

15 children subsidised by the state is the taxpaying money of honest people who are working hard at their jobs trying to pay for their own futures. Why should you have to bail out this woman? You shouldn't.

Well I would suggest after hearing of this story that people take a good long look at "The Welfare State" and what it has done especially to Black families. The Welfare State is ripping apart the nuclear family and has been since it started and there are PLENTY of reasons why that's bad for society.

I'm somewhat in the middle on this.

I'm not against a welfare state and people are only human. You cannot guarantee a father figure will stick around, you cannot promise someone a job until retirement. You need safety nets for those people.

However, you cannot just abuse the system. 15 children is obviously a joke and shouldn't have been allowed. That is where I am less in the middle.

I'm not against a welfare state though. I grew up on the welfare state. However, in doing so, I determined that I would not put anyone else through it. It's not a fun way to grow up.

[Memphis]

Miles just to point out. No one complained about you saying having a child was something to plan and give serious thought to. It all went pear shaped when you said people with kids were idiots.

Box on.

[Gandalf]

Miles just to point out. No one complained about you saying having a child was something to plan and give serious thought to. It all went pear shaped when you said people with kids were idiots.

Box on.

I still think it is kind of true though. A time and a place for everything. Got a kid and not ready yet? Outof controll breeding is never good.

[Memphis]

No, having a kid doesnt automatically make you an idiot. Having fifteen and no means to support them yes, that makes you an idiot.

[El Kabong]

No, having a kid doesnt automatically make you an idiot. Having fifteen and no means to support them yes, that makes you an idiot.

...ah but here's the thought process, WELFARE is a means to support them. If not for welfare, then those children would be taken from that woman and adopted by people who COULD care for them.

It's just bad news when Uncle Sam steps in to play "Baby Daddy"

[chinchekked]

I think that this whole problem could be taken care of if the screening process a little more meticulous. I'll even be a little forgiving for the sake of my point, how do they not cut her off after the 3rd or 4th child?! I'm all for helping people but I can not be convinced that this women would have had these kids if she didn't know the gov't was going to take care of them and its that selfishness and sense of entitlement that need to be cut off at the head. I strongly dislike people like this because people work hard to make decent livings and make great sacrifices throughout their lives just to get by but all this bitch does is lay on her back and wait for the gov't check.

[IamInuit]

New proof that evolution is a fact.

[Gandalf]

No, having a kid doesnt automatically make you an idiot. Having fifteen and no means to support them yes, that makes you an idiot.

Yes, it is a significantly different thing.

I disagree with Lyle's notion that charity can solve all of societies ills. Those that create inequality and poverty, have largely gained from perpetuating such a system. It is only right that tax is redistributed and that alone should be sufficient enough to reduce social inequality. That doesn't mean paying for every Mum and her dozen kids though, there needs to be sufficient checks and balances. If you are on welfare and get pregnant again for instance, then you should automatically be denied extra benefits.

I look at the society here and there is no such thing as the welfare Mum. It simply wouldn't be accepted and thus nobody allows it to happen. By being more hardline, you can stamp out blatant abuse. However, I think what we have here is perhaps too extreme. It really comes down to a sense of balance and proportion.

If the ordinary person wants a child then they should have one, but make sure they can provide for them first. If you've paid your taxes year in year out and things go wrong, then you deserve support too. You shouldn't need charities to bail you out as Lyle seems to think, your own contributions should suffice and people in the UK in particular tend to pay more than their share in taxes.

[VictorCharlie]

America's welfare state has created a sense of victimhood in poor communities. Politicians have garnered minority votes by pandering to them with government assistance for decades. These programs have perpetuated the poverty cycle thus creating more and more demand for government assistance. Politicians have essentially hooked poor communities on government assistance like a drug. The federal government should have no role in welfare programs. At a max this should be done at the state level and truthfully even more local than that. Let local communities decide how they support those in need an more importantly how they want to fund that support. Penn Jillette has a great quote on this.

"It's amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.

People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we're compassionate we'll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint."

Good video that illustrates this.


Humans are capable of so much but a lot of us will continually do just enough. America needs to raise the bar for what we expect of our citizens and then hold them accountable. This is absurd


Miles min. wage is the biggest discriminator against young and unskilled labor. It is amazing that politicians get poor people to vote against their own best interests. The best thing we could do for young and unskilled labor is to abolish the the minimum wage.


Our system for service jobs provides an opportunity for the worker to make more money than they could at a normal wage/hr job, it provides the customer w/a cheaper product and better service and the employer with a lower overhead and thus ability to hire more people. I ran a bar & grill. My waitresses were mostly young college girls w/ busy schedules. They usually worked three nights a week for 5-8 hours and walked out with $150 on average a night. If they actually worked 24 hours in a week that is almost $19/hr. No restaurant could afford to pay a full wait staff and bar staff that wage w/o 1. dramatically raising prices 2. cutting staff 3. forcing out young workers who are looking for a decent job with flexible and low hours. Not to mention being a tip based salary creates a great incentive for the worker to give you the best possible service and if you think it was substandard you can simply not tip.

[Gandalf]

VC, I simply cannot understand where you are coming from with some of your views. The abolishment of the minimum wage, for instance, is not going to help anyone bar those who want to abuse workers who are seen as a factor of production. In fact, I see no reason to even discuss such positions as I find them to be little more than reproduction of Chicago school points of views, which rational people have long seen as being scams which make the business community happy.

In America you have waiters earning 2 dollars 15 an hour as a basic wage, you have a minimum wage of something around 7 dollars an hour. Do you know how little that is? Why should you rely on the customer to tip? Why should you be earning a minimum wage half that of the UK? It is pure corporate greed and it doesn't take much for McDonald's to simply clean its act up and pay a fair wage. The catering industry is an exploitation industry and likewise, should be cleaned up. Let them go out of business. If you cannot pay the worker a wage without relying on my charity, then you deserve to go broke. You shouldn't have a business. You are a failed business.

In terms of a welfare state, I am quite in the middle. I have been in employment since the age of 14, I know the value of work and have always been in work. My first working wage almost 2 decades ago was more than double what an American waitress will recieve as a basic payment minus tips. I believe in the value of labour. That means paying the worker to do a job. It means closing your borders and it means paying the person who cleans your toilet a fair wage. He deserves it, and so do you, and so do I. Only open the borders for skilled jobs that local people just cannot do.

In the West, I think people have on the whole been sold out. My friend was talking about whenever he goes home to Scotland the taxi drivers are all Polish. There is a reason for that, it is because unchecked access to a labour market increases competition and drives down wages. I would quite like to be a taxi driver, but why would you do it for peanuts, just to make the owners happy? The dilution of markets is a problem and the lack of a meaningful minimum wage is a huge factor.

I don't think British people have any particular aversion to working for Scotish taxi firms. However, if wages are lower it would make a lot more sense to overseas workers who will happily work for less. I think it all leads to a serious problem. You could just blame the poor natives who will never do a days work, but at the same time, I think American and British societies have been seriously harmed by the policies set from above. They have clearly failed and I would like the opposite of much of what you argue.

People don't ask to be outsourced, they don't ask for borders to be unchecked, on the whole I don't think it is fair to blame most people who are struggling. I think Britain and America have been sold a Friedman based lie and the latest from Britain is that under 25's should not recieve benefits and that the mail service be privatised. I think the country has been sold out and viewpoints like yours are a problem.

[Violent Demise]

Miles just to point out. No one complained about you saying having a child was something to plan and give serious thought to. It all went pear shaped when you said people with kids were idiots.

Box on.

I still think it is kind of true though. A time and a place for everything. Got a kid and not ready yet? Outof controll breeding is never good.

Sounds like something someone who not doesn't have any but can't have any kids would say

[Gandalf]

That is a silly argument, VD and nothing to do with my stance on the issue. Nobody should be having children if there is nothing to back them up. My views come from a general appraisal of society, experience, and knowing how those who grew up around me have done. It is irresponsible to raise children and not be able to support them.

For your information, my medical records show my sperm to be slightly lazy, but within a normal range. Obviously my sperm dictates my political and social views.

[El Kabong]

I'm somewhat in the middle on this.

I'm not against a welfare state and people are only human. You cannot guarantee a father figure will stick around, you cannot promise someone a job until retirement. You need safety nets for those people.

However, you cannot just abuse the system. 15 children is obviously a joke and shouldn't have been allowed. That is where I am less in the middle.

I'm not against a welfare state though. I grew up on the welfare state. However, in doing so, I determined that I would not put anyone else through it. It's not a fun way to grow up.

Understood, but originally welfare was for TEMPORARY help to get people back on their feet, to get them to a place where they could provide for their families. But now people live on it, they just accept the benefits of it without shame, without remorse, and they like this lady have the gall to demand MORE, not because they provide anything that benefits society but just simply because they ARE. The since of entitlement in the United States is at epidemic levels and it needs to be cut out like a cancer.

I belong to groups who help the needy and less fortunate I help these people of my own free will. Not with taxpayer money, not with funds the government has pillaged from other citizens, but with my OWN funds and that is the way it should work. Neighbor should help neighbor of their own free will and I believe there would be less of a since of entitlement and that families would stick together, and that people wouldn't come to depend on the help but rather get to the point where they help themselves. Perhaps that's a little too altruistic to work, but that's how I feel.

[Gandalf]

In saying that though, you are of a culture that provides a minimum wage of 7 dollars or so an hour and which has gutted its manufacturing sector. For many in the service sector you pay 2 dollars 15 an hour. Do you really think you owe nothing to those people working 40 hours a week in the lowest paid sectors of society? At the very least you owe a minimum living wage. You charity is irrelevant to that basic economic argument.

The person above is obviously an extreme case, and like I suggested, she should be physically capped. However, I don't think most take any great pleasure in living on welfare. Surely a progressive society should be encouraging some level of nomalcy in the balance.

I'm a poor person to be debating with as I am quite conservative on this issue. I grew up in a poor family and much of my life has been a rebellion against it. Clearly, I believe people should plan for their future and if child rearing is so important then you should choose that carefully as the world isn't at its best.

[El Kabong]

In saying that though, you are of a culture that provides a minimum wage of 7 dollars or so an hour and which has gutted its manufacturing sector. For many in the service sector you pay 2 dollars 15 an hour. Do you really think you owe nothing to those people working 40 hours a week in the lowest paid sectors of society? At the very least you owe a minimum living wage. You charity is irrelevant to that basic economic argument.

The person above is obviously an extreme case, and like I suggested, she should be physically capped. However, I don't think most take any great pleasure in living on welfare. Surely a progressive society should be encouraging some level of nomalcy in the balance.

I'm a poor person to be debating with as I am quite conservative on this issue. I grew up in a poor family and much of my life has been a rebellion against it. Clearly, I believe people should plan for their future and if child rearing is so important then you should choose that carefully as the world isn't at its best.

Do you know how many, what kinds, and who does jobs that are minimum wage?

Waiters/Waitresses might make $2 something an hour, but they are tipped and don't believe that they are taxed on 100% of those tips. In America we DID try to not having tipping, but it is here and it's good for what it's worth.

I owe nothing to nobody. Living Wage, who determines what that is miles? Did you know that Welfare pays MORE than minimum wage. Also if people are OWED then what am I owed miles? There are certainly people wealthier than me.

My charity is not irrelevant to those I help and to suggest that is....well it's just typical of a person who doesn't know what they are talking about.