Absolutely not!

Children are innocent and did not ask to be born. If their parents can not take care of them, my husband and I are happy to hand over as much as we can so those children can have a decent start. It is not their fault they were born into troubles.

 

-----signature-----

The sad part is that you can keep on throwing money at the problem, but the kids are still going to suffer, and they already don't have a decent start, nor will they if the current system stays in place.

 

-----signature-----

That's tricky but condoms and education are clear winners. The more expensive forced ultrasound idea is a clear loser.

 

-----signature-----

Here is the problem with that. The "think of the children!" paradigm is precisely what has set up these egalitarian social safety nets that help to create more of these children. That is why you're ultimately better off with private charities.

Or think of it this way if you hated the bank bailouts. Everyone knew despite claims to the contrary that the government would come rescue those bad actors. Both of these examples are of moral hazard, the former however tugs at heart strings of people who just need to look a little further down the road to better understand the cause & effect.

Is that even cost-effective?

Let's say a single parent with 2 kids works for the government for 2 days/week in order to earn food stamps. That parent will need to hire a babysitter for approximately 18 hours (each day being 8 hours of work and a mandatory 1-hour lunch). Assuming that parent can get a cheap babysitter who can be paid under the table for only $5/hour, that's still a total of $90... which is enough to feed 3 people for a week. Not only that, this parent is costing the government more money, because all businesses (including the government) incur overhead costs for employees. In other words, this parent is spending 18 hours and a weekly food budget in order to get food for a week, and the government is spending even more money.

I know I made a lot of these numbers up, but it's still something to consider.

 

-----signature-----

Except there's no evidence/proof that the welfare system has a noteworthy impact on birthrates. It's just an issue conservatives exploit to rile up voters.

 

-----signature-----

forced abortion for those who can not afford kids.

 

-----signature-----

I understand the comparison and I do tend to agree with it in some instances. Trust me. I work in the ghetto and see things every day. It is very hard not to be angry at people who either appear to be abusing the system or are not using the system "correctly" (i.e. spending money frivolously and not attempting to become successful to our standards). I remind myself that there are a lot of things that I don't see. Low self-esteem, anger, resentment, guilt, stress. I can't imagine the stress that a lot of people who live in poverty go through. We might not see it, but it's there. It's easy to put on a good front in the daylight hours hiding under expensive clothes or a nice car, but they have to answer to themselves at night when they are laying in bed. I doubt everyone on welfare goes to bed with a smug look on their face because they pulled one over on the taxpayers.

But you know who are the most receptive to change and learning? The children. Whenever I get upset, judgmental, or angry at the adults I just remind myself I am working for the kids. They come to my tutoring, they want to start a garden, they want to be involved in the community, they want to learn proper dental care (it's the parents that often don't follow through with the adult portion of it), the list goes on. The cycle can be broken if we get to the children early enough and equip parents with the tools and knowledge to be good role models.

 

-----signature-----

Rothbard makes an excellent case

http://mises.org/journals/jls/12_2/12_2_1.pdf

 

-----signature-----

I would have to agree. Bat Avenger is a perfect example of how this world would be a better place if this system was active.

 

-----signature-----