3 ms·

They are expensive because they haven't hit the price points which induce demand pressure downward. That said, the thread holding this narrative together is th

They are expensive because they haven't hit the price points which induce demand pressure downward. That said, the thread holding this narrative together is the terrible welfare system in the United States. I see absolutely zero reason why the 0-3 y/o in poverty shouldn't qualify for free diapers from the local welfare offices, no questions asked. n.b., cloth diapers are a fair bit of work, and a substantial investment early on.

balls187 9y ago
> I see absolutely zero reason why the 0-3 y/o in poverty shouldn't qualify for free diapers from the local welfare offices I'll give you one reason: a large chunk of the voting population/tax base doesn't want to pay for it. > no questions asked. I understand your sentiment, but as soon as that sort of policy is implemented, unscrupulous individuals will abuse the system.
- pnathan 9y ago
  > unscrupulous individuals will abuse the system. Welfare fraud isn't that prevalent, and adequate checks on gratuitous abuse are not exactly difficult to implement. For the people who would rather see newborns have health issues than pay taxes, I frankly find their morals odious and their foresight lacking.
  - balls187 9y ago
    The point being there are checks. "No questions asked" implied no checks. > For the people who would rather see newborns have health issues than pay taxes, I frankly find their morals odious and their foresight lacking. The article referenced a black, un-wed, young mother stuggling to pay for diapers. That portrayal of poor minorities is what the anti-welfare state sees when fighting for less taxes. The money isn't going to people who are struggling like they might be; the money is going to minorities who aren't willing to work hard. Said more plainly, the health and wellbeing of black and brown babies are worth less to (some|many) Americans than white ones.
    - pnathan 9y ago
      > The point being there are checks. "No questions asked" implied no checks. it really doesn't. no questions need to be asked if you aren't tripping the fraud wires of, e.g., grabbing 30 diapers a day for 1 kid. > Said more plainly, the health and wellbeing of black and brown babies are worth less to (some|many) Americans than white ones. I agree that that describes the reality that exists. I find that morally problematic, however: whatever else we can pick at, I feel that babies are all equal and they matter.
      - balls187 9y ago
        My belief, if you showed most (all?) Americans a baby, regardless of color, and asked if that baby deserved healthy life, they'd say yes. If you asked if they'd donate $2, they'd probably be inclined to do so. The problems comes down to the concept in abstract. Special interest groups capitalizing on the frustration of paying tax, by preying on human's most base nature of mistrusting people that are perceived to be different. "You're paying high taxes, and lazy people (minorities) are getting a free ride." sounds much better than "You're paying high taxes, and government contractors are taking a lot of that money." Especially since poor/minorities are far less of a powerful lobby than those who represent government contractors.

balls187 9y ago

> I see absolutely zero reason why the 0-3 y/o in poverty shouldn't qualify for free diapers from the local welfare offices I'll give you one reason: a large chunk of the voting population/tax base doesn't want to pay for it. > no questions asked. I understand your sentiment, but as soon as that sort of policy is implemented, unscrupulous individuals will abuse the system.

pnathan 9y ago
> unscrupulous individuals will abuse the system. Welfare fraud isn't that prevalent, and adequate checks on gratuitous abuse are not exactly difficult to implement. For the people who would rather see newborns have health issues than pay taxes, I frankly find their morals odious and their foresight lacking.
- balls187 9y ago
  The point being there are checks. "No questions asked" implied no checks. > For the people who would rather see newborns have health issues than pay taxes, I frankly find their morals odious and their foresight lacking. The article referenced a black, un-wed, young mother stuggling to pay for diapers. That portrayal of poor minorities is what the anti-welfare state sees when fighting for less taxes. The money isn't going to people who are struggling like they might be; the money is going to minorities who aren't willing to work hard. Said more plainly, the health and wellbeing of black and brown babies are worth less to (some|many) Americans than white ones.
  - pnathan 9y ago
    > The point being there are checks. "No questions asked" implied no checks. it really doesn't. no questions need to be asked if you aren't tripping the fraud wires of, e.g., grabbing 30 diapers a day for 1 kid. > Said more plainly, the health and wellbeing of black and brown babies are worth less to (some|many) Americans than white ones. I agree that that describes the reality that exists. I find that morally problematic, however: whatever else we can pick at, I feel that babies are all equal and they matter.
    - balls187 9y ago
      My belief, if you showed most (all?) Americans a baby, regardless of color, and asked if that baby deserved healthy life, they'd say yes. If you asked if they'd donate $2, they'd probably be inclined to do so. The problems comes down to the concept in abstract. Special interest groups capitalizing on the frustration of paying tax, by preying on human's most base nature of mistrusting people that are perceived to be different. "You're paying high taxes, and lazy people (minorities) are getting a free ride." sounds much better than "You're paying high taxes, and government contractors are taking a lot of that money." Especially since poor/minorities are far less of a powerful lobby than those who represent government contractors.