And as Long as We’re on the Assclown Topic

Once again, history’s greatest monster is some poor woman who needs help feeding her children:

Despite the fact that low-income women who give birth to children would logically need increased assistance to care for their larger family, Pennsylvania lawmakers — State Reps. RoseMarie Swanger (R), Tom Caltagirone (D), Mark Gillen (R), Keith Gillespie (R), Adam Harris (R), and Mike Tobash (R) — don’t want their state’s food stamp program to provide additional benefits for that newborn. If a woman gives birth to a child who was conceived from rape, she may seek an exception to this rule so that her food stamp benefits aren’t slashed, butonly if she can provide proof that she reported her sexual assault and her abuser’s identity to the police.

The primary sponsor of this bill, oddly, doesn’t list it among her many accomplishments (including but not limited to promoting “American Law for American Courts“). Even more disheartening, a Democrat is co-sponsoring the thing, though he at least has the stones to put it out there.

Nowhere in the bill is it mentioned that perhaps the men who can’t govern their own dicks should have benefits reduced to them, because women are the ones tasked with providing for their children, and women bear those children, and women raise those children, and women are shamed for getting pregnant and shamed for not getting pregnant and shamed for being raped and shamed for reporting their rapes and shamed for not reporting their rapes and shamed for giving birth and shamed for getting abortions because stupid bitches and that’s why.

As to the actual dollar amount that will be saved by the state through eliminating the horrible scourge of poor fake-rape babies, the bill is silent. There were eight entire cases of fraud proven overall, according to this, in the past month.

So clearly this is a crisis we all need to get working on. Fuck this. If you added up all the fraud and waste and horror that poor people supposedly cause, I doubt it would total a month’s worth of time blowing shit up in Afghanistan, but hey, people on public assistance are already down, so that makes them much easier to kick.

I do not understand what we get out of this, as a society. I really, really don’t. If I thought making poor people feel like shit about themselves would actually end poverty maybe I’d be a little more in favor of doing it, but you know, it’s not about the objects of our charity. It’s about us, and what we deserve to do. To send outward into the world. To show others.

And all of the testing, the probing, the constant suspicion that somebody somewhere is getting away with something, that doesn’t do shit to make people any less poor. All it does is make those of us who are not poor a little less rich.


9 thoughts on “And as Long as We’re on the Assclown Topic

  1. Remember, these are True Christians doing this. If J.C.came back to earth, he’d never recognize the dull-witted, bigoted,narrow-minded and vicious religion the American right-wingnut Xristians have made of his creed.
    And if he did try to correct them, they’d nail him up on the cross.Again.

  2. The list of cases doesn’t specify exactly what kind of fraud is involved here. Is there not actually a newborn there? Is the newborn richer than the mother? Is the newborn getting child support that isn’t reported somewhere?
    “don’t want their state’s food stamp program to provide additional benefits for that newborn. If a woman gives birth to a child who was conceived from rape, she may seek an exception to this rule so that her food stamp benefits aren’t slashed”
    I don’t understand this at all: how is making sure the mother was raped going to change whether or not the newborn needs food?
    With a baby, the mother’s monetary situation has changed for the worst, she clearly can’t work as much as she did before, she needs to increase her calorie intake if she’s breast feeding and the baby needs food if she isn’t.
    How, exactly, does having a newborn baby merit “getting your food stamp benefits slashed”?

  3. Dorothy, as I understand the argument, someone shouldn’t have children if they can’t support them. So we will punish them and the children by slashing or withholding benefits.
    Nevermind that the argument also includes not allowing poor women to get contraceptives that would prevent pregnancy, not allowing poor women access to abortion services if they do have an unwanted pregnancy, and not teaching children that there are other ways to not get pregnant besides abstinence.
    It all boils down to the hateful right-to-lifers–they’re all about the unborn babies and their “right to life” until they’re born. After that those babies and their immoral, slutty, welfare queen mamas can fuck off and die.
    These are not my values and are not the values of the country I want to live in.

  4. To me, I have to ask about collateral damage.
    As Dorothy indicates, the kid needs food, shelter, clothing, mental stimulation, etc. I’d add the question on how exhorbitant a lifestyle one could lead on the benefits for a child (in most states, the payment for a child is very low income, borderline living). So mom has to cut out something, and if very likely might be what middle class folk would consider necessities for the child.
    So even with welfare payments for the kid (and I’m using ‘welfare’ loosely to include all the govt subsidies such as WIC, AFDC, etc.) meager resources are further diluted.
    Malnourished child. Growing up with deficient mental stimulation. Singled out as being the poorest kid in school. Example from parents is that you can’t break into a good paying job. etc. etc. You’re painting a roadmap for conditioning the child to buy into a mentality that they CAN’T achieve. That they CAN’T do anything to change their lot in life.
    Admittedly, govt can’t seem to think beyond the next election cycle (if that far. Often it is the next 24 hour news cycle). But the long term benefit of investing in the children now would set a course for correcting the problem in a generation.
    Also, I’ve known people with multiple kids on welfare. I’m sure the sociologists have done studies. I’ll just say from my experience, the reason for the kids wasn’t the additional welfare. In at least 2 cases, it was clear to me that the problem was the mother with an extremely poor image of herself being easily manipulated by sweet talk. Admittedly, we’re not gonna solve the world in a day, but the venom spewed at “welfare queens” just has the effect of feeding into their poor image, making them more desperate for acceptance.

  5. Dorothy, I think the idea is that all this women be havin’ babies to get more welfare, as you do. And if we slash their benefits they will have less motivation to get pregnant, unless they are raped and get pregnant AND CAN PROVE IT.
    I swear these assholes I can’t even.

  6. how dickensian. we really must make these poor suffer. HEY! they have teevee and microwaves. let them eat mcdonald’s.

  7. They pulled the bill, cuz voting to starve children right before an election might make them look like exactly who they are.

  8. The world would have been a far, far better place if St. Ronnie of the Raygun had never gotten elected in the first damn place. Forty flippin’ years later his lies about our underprivileged Americans continue to make their lives harder and our lot in trying to find an even playing field for everyone less possible.

Comments are closed.