I suppose an 'enlightened' reaction would be simply to pay her $1400 a month to take care of her children, thus saving the taxpayers $2200 a month. Or even better, how about axing all these stupid programs in the first place that leads people to rightly believe that you can have as many babies as you want - the rest of the village will pay for them, care for them, educate them, while you go do whatever you want.
But is there a single politician out there who is even mentioning such a concept? Even paying lip service? No, because if they're talking about things like this, someone might wonder if all the glorious perks that the more equal animals among us in government earn might also be incredible wastes of taxpayer money.
While he was mostly a joke as governor, Jesse Ventura sometime ten-fifteen years ago, when in a town-hall type forum was asked by a young woman who identified herself as a single mom and complained of the inadequate level of state support for her to raise her child, told her that he didn't know why the Minnesota taxpayer had to be responsible when a woman didn't know enough to keep her knees together.
“I suppose an ‘enlightened’ reaction would be simply to pay her $1400 a month to take care of her children, thus saving the taxpayers $2200 a month.”
The current system promotes idiocracy. I guaran-damn-tee you that woman has at best an average IQ and her studs a better physique than brain. Meanwhile, hard-working people who refuse to put their kids and family on AFDC simply don’t have them. I know you were funnin’, but to me, an enlightened reaction would be to stop paying her altogether. Then the taxpayers who were ponying up that $2200 a month could afford to have and feed their own kids.
She might even be drawing SS if she has a scam with a doctor who declared them disabled.