How should the welfare system be reformed? Any ideas?

[blkgrl]

A few months ago, I heard that Dean said something along the lines of people on welfare not having any self esteem, etc. At first I was taken aback, but then I realized he was right, and I'm realizing more and more that something has to be done about our current system.

Now, to be clear, I don't envision a system where we see many homeless mothers and children lining the street. However, I want to see a system where its very clear to young teenagers that dropping out of school and having 4, 5 kids, is no longer an option. This welfare thing is keeping many people in poverty and like Dean said, its taking away self esteem and self efficacy.

I think over the next few years, Democrats should think about drastically changing the way our system works. I don't know enough to provide specifics, but I know it should be something along the lines of "help those who help themselves." My family runs a business and we've seen how many women will actually quit working once their welfare benefits are taken away. This is a huge problem, and we need to be fair about this. Its not right that some people who are perfectly capable of working choose not to, and live off the backs of taxpayers like you and me. I think right now, Dean is the only one who has the right idea of how the welfare system should work.

[DBoon]

1. Support working poor

Welfare should provide an opportunity for people to move into a job. It should suport people in low income jobs, allowing them a decent existance while encouraging their continued employment and their efforts to better themselves.

- Support conitnuing education for people on welfare. Allow them to better prepare themselves for work by gaining degrees or credentials if they wish.

- Ensure people in low income jobs have the support necessary to continue in those jobs. Childcare, transportation, medical care should improve when you get off welfare, not vanish. Expand the earned income tax credit.

- Pursue economic policies of full employment. In a tight job market, employers are more willing to take the risk of hiring a former welfare recipient.

- Provide public sector jobs where private sector jobs arent available. Think 30's era CCC, WPA, etc.

- Quit prosecuting people for minor drug offenses. The criminal record does more harm to their employability than the drug use itself.

- Accept the fact that some portion of people on welfare will never be employable and deal with it.

[blkgrl]

6. childcare is very important!

Your plan sounds good. I especially agree with the education part.

[izzie]

7. More education for all, not just rich people

That is one thing they found in doctors. They have someone who will pay for their living while they are in school. They are no smarter than the ave, but they do have a support system so they can go to school.Also people need to know that you just have to learn to play the system. Go to work on time, dress right, and talk right. It may be smart to talk trash and dress with your pants half off but not at work.They had a study on that in Ill and it worked.

[bread_and_roses]

13. good suggestions

...and I would add, accept that we are entering an economy where there are simply not going to be jobs for many people. Individuals should neither be blamed nor scorned if there are no jobs for them, and forcing them into degraded destitution is a recipie for disaster.

[DBoon]

18. Public sector jobs...

If the economy does not have enough jobs, then provide government employment doing work of public benefit.

[Padraig18]

82. More mass transit and subsidised transportation

A great many current inner-city welfare recipients are people who once worked full-time--- the 'working poor'. Due to the mass exodus to the suburbs and those same suburbs' desires to attract business and industry, various tax schemes, etc., were developed to encourage businesses to migrate from the inner cities to the 'burbs. Mass transit did not, sadly, keep pace with the business migration pattern, and many inner-city 'working poor' could not afford private transportation to their 'old jobs', nor could they afford to live in the areas where their former employers had relocated. Now jobless and competing with OTHER working poor situated exactly like they themselves were for the fewer jobs available, a 'rut' was dug out of which many are unable to 'pull their wagon'.

Think about your own life, and how difficult ordinary things like getting to work would be without private transportation, affordable mass transit or subsidised alternative transit? Would going to the grocery store be the simple thing it is today? Would going to work? You see my point?

I lived for 8 years in Chicago and saw this phenomenon, and we must address the issues of *where the jobs are* and *how do we get poor people TO those jobs* if we are to ever break the back of multi-generational welfare dependency. It is entirely unrealistic to talk about welfare-to-work schemes in a setting wherein people are financially forced to live in one place and at the same time failing to provide them with viable transportation alternatives to get thjem to *where the jobs are*.

[blkgrl]

83. good point

BTW, I don't have a car and its pretty hard to get around in Atlanta without one. Transportation is definately an issue.

[Padraig18]

85. Yes, it's a big issue

It's one we must address, if we are to create a viable 'exit ramp' from multi-generational welfare dependency highway. :hi:

[wtmusic]

2. Dean retracted that statement

but I agree with Dean that welfare reform is critical if the system is going to work at all.

My niece is a first time homebuyer and was blown away by the number of other buyers that would show up at open houses in BMWs and Hummers, with financing provided by low-income government loans.

The idea is right but it's time to get serious about waste and corruption.

[pop goes the weasel]

3. Hey, here's an idea

Why don't business owners like you pay people enough in the first place that they can provide for their families without welfare? The majority of poor people in the US already have jobs; they don't need any more "reform" on their end. How about some reform on the part of employers?

[Kamika]

5. heh thats pretty unfair

We have our own family business too, and its unfair as hell of you to come off like this instead of actually posting a serious answer.

You have absolutely no clue of what you're talking about.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

12. I work for a small businessman

and I think the world of him. He is trying his best to do the best for his workers, even if it means he doesn't get as much profit as he might. He's given us paid leave when we need it (one guy was injured on his four-wheeler while out hunting, and the boss paid his weekly salary all the time he couldn't work, which was a couple of months), only telling us how glad he was we were back on the job when we returned (and never mentioning the hassles he had to go through when we weren't there).

As business manager for the company, I can tell you that he can't afford to pay us any more than he does-I know the financial obligations he must meet each month. I think that unless you know the particular business, it is impossible to say that the boss is ripping off his workers.

BTW, my boss is a DEMOCRAT and can't stand Bush!

[pop goes the weasel]

88. It's plenty fair

Are you saying that you know you are not paying a living wage? Look, maybe you can't afford to, and the people who you employ now are just glad to have anything. But if you can't afford to pay them what they need to live on, why be angry with them if they need welfare too? That welfare is subsidizing your business in the form of wage assistance. And if they have to quit because they need to make a choice between welfare and wages, why blame the worker? How about getting trying to get something done that will enable people like you to offer wages and benefits that outmatch the truly paltry amounts that Texas gives families on welfare?

[blkgrl]

10. True, employers should pay more

This post wasn't about people who are trying to do the right thing and work. This is about the people who think they can have child after child and know they will never have to work because the system will always be there to support them.

[blkgrl]

25. Make that "the larger employers" should pay more n/t

[DEMActivist]

26. Ahhhh, your true colors start to emerge

The reincarnation of Ronald Reagan's "welfare queen" in person!!!!

First of all, with the Clinton administration's "welfare reform," there's not a single word of truth to the above post.

And, when people like you and Shrub get finished there won't be even a semblance of a safety net.

[blkgrl]

29. The welfare queen DOES exist

And trust me, she can come in all colors--so don't go there. I have relatives who have been on welfare so I'm not here thinking I'm better than everyone else. Why can you not understand that I'm interested in seeing the system reformed so that it only helps those who REALLY need it?

[DEMActivist]

30. Only in your pathetic, sad delusions

With nothing but complaints, derision and name calling.

I note you neglect to respond to calls for YOU, PERSONALLY to take responsibility for just ONE of your imagined "welfare queens."

That says it all.

[blkgrl]

34. I don't know where you're from

But I've lived in Brooklyn, New York and now in Atlanta and I can tell you first hand that they exist. Women who will not work at all, but somehow manage to get their nails and hair done every week? The welfare queen does exist, why are you in such denial? And by the way, acknowledging the existence of welfare mothers does not in any way suggest that ALL people on welfare are that way.

[DEMActivist]

39. LOL, I'm in metro Atlanta myself

So, a welfare mother who gets her hair and nails done every week is abhorent to you how? They're supposed to be untidy, ugly, unattractive if they get one red cent of YOUR TAX DOLLARS? And you know they pay for these niceties with food stamps, I presume? OK, I think we all get it.

[blkgrl]

43. Try again

You keep trying to put words in my mouth. The whole reason why I brought this up is because of the negative effects it has on the children, you wouldn't understand that though, so I won't bother to get into that. Talking with you about this has proven to be a waste of my time.

[DEMActivist]

47. Ahhh, beginning to get uncomfortable

reading your own words as other people see them?

I hope so. Perhaps then you'll realize what kind of bigotry you are espousing on this thread.

I hope I am making you very uncomfortable.

[blkgrl]

48. I encourage you to do some research

on how welfare in general has had more negative effects than positive ones.

Children whose mothers received welfare but were not employed had more negative cognitive and behavioral outcomes and less stimulating home learning environments than did children whose mothers were continuously employed and not receiving welfare. Their mothers had poorer mental health, less social support, and more avoidant coping strategies.

http://www.nccp.org/pub_www01.html#N5

[DEMActivist]

54. Ahhh, but that's NOT what you said....

You said ALL stay at home mothers need to be out working. You said ALL children need to be in education programs by 2. You said ALL women who stay at home don't "mother" or educate. You said ALL stay at home Moms were an insult to you.

So why don't you address just ONE of these and make it a case study? I think you should start here, with just one of your "welfare queens":

Their mothers had poorer mental health, less social support, and more avoidant coping strategies.

Make a difference. Accept the challenge. Change the world one "welfare queen" at a time. That's not asking too much of you is it?

[blkgrl]

57. Wrong again

<You said ALL stay at home mothers need to be out working. >

I didn't say all need to be out working, but it would be a lot more helpful in the long run if some of these mothers went back to school to obtain some sort of training. Its helpful for the children to be in a Head Start program because statistics show that welfare mothers have less education. Less educated mothers == > kids who struggle educationally. Those are the facts, whether you like them or not.

[Mairead]

77. That's correlation, not causation

Try these:

Single mothers on public assistance experience significantly higher levels of psychological distress and hopelessness than non-recipients. Study results demonstrate that this is mainly due to the material hardship they experience.

No substantial evidence was found to suggest that long-term welfare dependence had a greater negative effect on mental health than short- term dependence.

Study results do not support the claim that work itself makes single mothers more confident about their own competence. Single mothers earning low wages experience similar levels of depressive symptoms and feelings of hopelessness as single mothers on welfare.

Policy Implications:

In order for work to significantly improve emotional well-being, wages must be sufficient enough to lift single mothers and families out of poverty.

Petterson & Friel, "Psychological Distress and Hopelessness of Women on Welfare Related to Material Hardship"

[blkgrl]

79. Its both--welfare /poverty tends to be a neverending cycle n/t

How do you expect the cycle to end if we just keep things the way they are?

[Mairead]

92. No it's NOT both - please learn the difference!

Correlation is the characteristic of varying together. Causality is the characteristic of dependence. Two or more things can vary together without any of them being the cause of that variation.

And you've presented absolutely NO evidence that receipt of public assistance is in any way generational or cyclic in the poor. The only evidence we have is that it persists over generations among the wealthy elites.

[blkgrl]

95. are you serious?

And you've presented absolutely NO evidence that receipt of public assistance is in any way generational or cyclic in the poor.

You're obviously misinformed.

[DuctapeFatwa]

51. Within the year, someone will propose euthanizing the poor

The positive reaction the bill will receive will come as a surprise to many who are affluent, and few who are not.

[blkgrl]

53. And that comment came from....where? n/t

[DuctapeFatwa]

58. The same person who said in 2000 that bush would start at least 2 wars

in his first term.

[blkgrl]

60. How was that relevant to the discussion of reforming welfare?

[DEMActivist]

61. You don't WANT a discussion about welfare reform

You came here to demonize "welfare queens."

If you wanted a discussion about welfare reform, you would answer any of the number of posts which actually ADDRESS the situation instead of trying to start a flame fest with tired, old canards about "welfare queens" who get their hair and nails done once a week.

[DuctapeFatwa]

66. It is the logical and natural progression of criminalizing poverty

Which has come about with the help of the demonization of the poor and the spreading of propaganda about welfare queens and crap about how awful it is for a poor woman to get her hair done, and couldn't we just put them on treadmills like in Dickens' time and give them a bowl of gruel if they stay on it and keep silent for 16 hours and why do they have sex if they know they can't afford children, why not infibulate the women, everyone understands that a man has needs but the women, you'd think they'd have some decency, I'm only concerned about the children, you understand, did you know some countries don't even have child labor laws, why we went to Whereverstan last summer and they looked so happy making the beautiful carpets, much happier than those urchins waiting for their mama outside the nail salon.

[blkgrl]

75. choices versus circumstance

The worse the circumstances of someones upbringing, the worse off a person will be. I think we all understand that by now.

propaganda about welfare queens and crap about how awful it is for a poor woman to get her hair done

Its not propoganda. I'm lucky to get my hair done once a month, but some of the people I know on welfare get their hair and nails done EVERY week (costing an average of about $100 a week).

why do they have sex if they know they can't afford children

I think thats a fair question, you don't? Give me a break!

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blkgrl]

109. you can't be serious

Why is it hateful to wonder why **some** women on welfare keep having more and more kids? Or why monies received are not being put towards the child?

[DuctapeFatwa]

130. LOL, for once I say something NICE about DU and they delete it

Perfect!

Yes, I've learned my lesson, it won't happen again

:7

[DBoon]

73. lots o' women like that

Who believe thay are entitled to live well without having to work.

Some of them marry men with high incomes. These are sometimes called "trophy wives"

Some end up on public assistance. These are sometimes called "welfare queens"

They look pretty similar to me.

We should be teaching our girls to be self sufficient and watch out for themselves. We need more tough girls and fewer royalty (queens, princesses, etc.)

[pop goes the weasel]

42. where are these people?

You said yourself that the women who work for your family quit if they are faced with losing their welfare benefits--you didn't say they quit so they can have more children. You did make a reference to teenagers having children because they think welfare will support them, but that is hardly the bulk of welfare recipients, and I don't imagine you are talking about teenage employees. Maybe there should be a rule that children of minors on welfare will be put up for adoption, or some other rule concentrating on that one group. But the women who are quitting their jobs to keep their benefits would probably prefer to keep working. So, what needs to be done, on the employer end of things, to keep those women working?

[pop goes the weasel]

I'm glad we do agree on that

A living wage will go a long way toward a more just society. But I disagree with your addendum--smaller employers need to pay more, too. They may need help to do so, but they should still do so.

[DBoon]

14. Because if they did

Their competitors (next door or in a low wage country) would undercut them and put them out of business.

This is why we need government intervention here.

[Kamika]

4. Make it feel like they earn money instead of getting it for nothing

Make people on welfare work, and i mean anything but aslong as they actually work. It cant be hard to make them clean the streets, or public parks or something like that. While at the same time stay drug-FREE !

Who knows they might even start a successfull business.

Anything that makes it so welfare is seen as wages instead of welfare.

[blkgrl]

11. I agree

Welfare recipients should be forced to work, and their kids should be in a daycare that also provides educational instruction.

I can see a great system where people are given incentives to start daycares to care for children from welfare homes. I can even see some of these mothers getting the opportunity to go into business for themselves by providing services that help other welfare recipients.

[DBoon]

17. Work is good

It forces a self-discipline that allows people to fully reach their potential.

In a capitalist society, work is how you participate in the mainstream of society.

It is important to keep up work habits, even during periods of unemployment.

Work is creative efforts. Work results in accomplishment, even if it is just cleaning up a restroom. Any sort of accomplishment is good for the human soul.

The marginal benefit of working should always exceed the costs. It should also exceed the marginal benefit of not working. If neoclassic economics is valid for capitalists, it is valid for labor. Why expect people to work when the consequence is they lose the medical and other benefits of not working?

[DEMActivist]

8. While I am offended by your language..

Particularly this statement:

My family runs a business and we've seen how many women will actually quit working once their welfare benefits are taken away.

I'll go ahead and answer your post, ignoring for now this comment which my findings prove incorrect.

A simple solution is to place welfare recipients in the jobs of providing services the cities and states are responsible for. This would require these people take the unskilled jobs of garbage collection, meter reading, water line repair, infrastructure maintenance, etc. which every community requires.

As skills are obtained, abilities are enhanced, move these people up to better skilled jobs with better pay. Make skills enhancement and training a part of the requirements. Train, enhance and teach skills with upward mobility as the basis for that training.

A program like this takes the funds for one program (welfare) to save on others (infrastructure maintenance, etc.) and makes the same funds dual purpose. We ALL get something for our tax dollars.

As a small business owner, I traditionally employ "welfare mothers" and the disabled in my business. With few exceptions, they are the hardest workers and most motivated human beings I meet. They take great pride in learning and achieving at even the most menial tasks. We've taken employees from packing orders to inventory control on the computer through training. Women who had to bring their kids to work with them when the babysitter didn't show up, young men whose biggest desire was just to be seen as someone who could feed his family. We DID, as employers, have to be seen as understanding and accomodating to THEIR needs - like letting them bring the kids when necessary. But, they almost always did a better job than the spoiled white teens who just wanted a summer job.

I agree with Dr. Dean - give them pride and self esteem and they will ALWAYS outperform your expectations.

[blkgrl]

16. I'm sorry that you were offended

But I'm not pulling this out of my @ss here. We've actually been told, several times, that this was the reason for quitting.

I'm simply interested in seeing change in the way we approach this issue. Its clear that many people truly do need welfare and I am not interested in seeing the system be completely removed. But welfare has created a generation of people who know they can drop out of school, have children, and never have to worry about working.

As a small business owner, I traditionally employ "welfare mothers" and the disabled in my business. With few exceptions, they are the hardest workers and most motivated human beings I meet. They take great pride in learning and achieving at even the most menial tasks. We've taken employees from packing orders to inventory control on the computer through training.

We are healthcare providers, so while we can't generally include welfare workers (most of our employees have to be at least a certified nursing assistant), we do try to include everyone who is motivated to work if an opening for a less skilled worker arises. Unfortunately, our experiences were far different from yours: Women who knew they could always depend on a government check were most likely to be "no call, no shows" and show little or no respect to our clients.

We DID, as employers, have to be seen as understanding and accomodating to THEIR needs - like letting them bring the kids when necessary. But, they almost always did a better job than the spoiled white teens who just wanted a summer job.

I applaud you for that, but its simply not possible for us to allow children into the private homes of medical patients.

You provided some very good ideas for how the welfare system can be reformed. Again, I'm not sure what I said that was so offensive, but I think what you're doing is great.

[DEMActivist]

22. However....

If you would stop dismissing the issue as "not my problem" and think of innovative ways to address them, you might find hard working, employable people. Is it so hard for you, as a responsible business owner, to contact a local day care center and arrange for "emergency, single day" daycare for employees who might need it?

Trust me when I say that the local day care centers will work with local employers to help. It simply takes a little effort and innovation.

We must ALL take responsibility - there's never a time when it's not our problem.

It is easier to develop the attitude of "they just don't want to work" then to try and solve the problem. Granting yourself absolution by denying your responsibility to make a difference is a cop out.

If we all take ONE person under our wing, when able to do so, we make a very big difference in our world. Of course, it is easier to complain than DO.

[blkgrl]

28. I think you're mistaken

It IS my problem, and thats why I posted this message. I look around my city and see first hand how welfare is destroying women and children. To say that our current system has not created a culture of people unwilling to work is a joke at best.

I think working with your employees to help with day care, etc. is a great thing if you're able to do it. We're more or less a temporary employment agency although some employees have long term assignments.

[DEMActivist]

32. ROFL...yet again...excuses, excuses...

why it's not your problem, only your right to complain about your imagined "welfare queens."

No, you posted this message for the single reason of furthering the tired, incorrect, carnard of calling people welfare queens. That becomes more obvious with each of your posts.

Your agenda is showing....

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

9. Welfare Reform Plan

1. Start building self esteem at the beginning of life.
I believe Dean said that in VT they had a program where folks came in to help new parents and to coach them on how to raise their kids and deal with stress. This has resulted in fewer instances of domestic violence and in improved health for the kids.

2. Maintain a strong Head Start program.
This program has been a success since its inception in the 60s. It should be fully funded.

3. Be more flexible in education.
This calling for everyone to be tested and everyone to have to take college-track courses (that's what they are planning to do here in AR) will result in drop-outs. Not everyone can do well on a paper and pencil test, but that doesn't mean that they aren't creative, smart, and able to work in their own way. More alternatives need to be created. I always thought that junior high school should have a "life course" where kids went out and actually observed and experienced(when possible) the different kinds of work available in their town. Classes and apprenticeships should be available for those who don't plan to go to college but are interested in other fields. This should include a course in setting up a small business.

4. Decriminalize drug use and take the profit out of dealing.
Criminal elements go wherever there is money to be made. The 'war on drugs' has been an abject failure. As Howard Dean has said (in a Nation Magazine article), drug use is a medical problem. Cleaning up drug users by sending them to clinics instead of prison will result in more useful citizens working.

5. Help the mentally ill.
Don't remember when they dumped a lot of mentally ill people out of institutions and into the streets, but for many that was a disaster. More mentally ill people should have access to half-way houses, at least, so they can be cared for. Those who can make it with help (job coaches, etc) should be encouraged to do so. Even if their job is subsidized by job coaches, etc, they are still working and learning (and displaying) a work ethic.

6. De-stress materialism.
This can only be done with the help of Hollywood and corporate interests, and probably won't happen. But rampant consumerism, and the blatant display of 'stuff' is one of the main reasons poor people often feel hopeless. It is why some turn to drugs-to get big money quickly. It is why so many resort to violence-they are frustrated by what they want but can't get. Give publicity to the celebrities who are out doing good for others. Let the college kids who spend Spring Break in Florida building houses for Habitat for Humanity get their own special.

I know these points might not be what is considered 'welfare reform' but I feel they will do more to reform welfare than any tinkering with the current system.

[blkgrl]

20. Very good points

I always thought that junior high school should have a "life course" where kids went out and actually observed and experienced(when possible) the different kinds of work available in their town. Classes and apprenticeships should be available for those who don't plan to go to college but are interested in other fields. This should include a course in setting up a small business.

We need to end this one shoe fits all approach to education. Yes, its important to teach kids the basics (math, reading, etc.) but we should tailor curriculums to fit the environment in which they're taught. Make more classes in the poorest areas technical: for example, teach web design, and other technological things that are more hands on, and less about taking tests. Reading about certain fields on paper make the fields seem much harder than they really are. Focus more on hands on courses and I think we'll see dramatic changes.

[FlaGranny]

23. Excellent ideas, all of them.

The place to begin is at the beginning, after all. Welfare is a form of trap, much like a prison. Prevention of the need for either is the best answer. I fear it will never happen in my lifetime - too much greed and selfishness to overcome.

[GOPisEvil]

15. I am all for moving people on public assistance to self-sufficiency.

That was the goal of Welfare Reform back in 1996. But, where that act fell short was in providing the necessary support for those in transition. Lack of child care, transportation (especially in rural areas) and inadequate transitional Medicaid often drives people back to welfare as they often have a higher standard of living.

[radwriter0555]

19. Yeah, make it EASIER for people who need it to get it, to get MORE and to

stay on it as long as they need to....

Provide more money for decent housing, more health education and nutrition programs and day care.

Why should everyone be forced to work? Especially families with children? What's the point? Are we NOT the most wealthy, powerful and generous country on the planet? We MUST do MORE for our families, nutrition, housing, child care, education and families. We certainly don't do enough, that's for certain.

Get rid of that pesky oil for the rich profiteers program in iraq and we would have PLENTY of money to take care of the people that really matter. The people in our own homes.

[blkgrl]

21. Why should everyone be forced to work?

Everyone should not be forced to work, but those who simply CHOOSE not to should not be supported by taxpayers. Its that simple.

[FlaGranny]

35. Early intervention

might cut down on the number of people who simply choose not to work. Those are the kinds of people who populate prisons. They have to live and if they choose not to work they find some other way - and taxpayers definitely do pay then. It costs us in higher insurance premiums, prison room and board, and fear for our person and our belongings.

There is little hope of cutting crime and/or welfare unless people learn and adopt the values of society at an early age. There are too many "antisocial" people who are more or less "out of place" in modern society. And all of this sounds a little too much like I'm saying everyone must conform, and that scares me a lot; but if I knew all the answers, I wouldn't be sitting here writing this. ;-)

[bread_and_roses]

24. The notion that self-esteem

has anything to do with people being on or off welfare makes me laugh. And the small city in which I live has had Dr.Dean's home visiting program for new moms since forever. Yes, it's a good program, but It has eliminated neither welfare nor child abuse.

We have structural poverty in this country, and a lot of it does have to do with low-wage jobs, though of course there are many small business people who strive to pay good wages. But there are millions of jobs in this country that do not pay living wages. And there are simply not enough jobs anyway. What do you think the unemployment level would be if all the people who've never even been counted as job-seekers or who've dropped off the counts were included?

The tales of Hummers and SUVs strike me as a contemporary version of Reagan's "Welfare Queen" in a Cadillac. I don't know what low-interest gov't loans are referred to, but believe me, they are not welfare.

And believe it or not, the able-bodied on welfare have long been required to work, excepting, until our great champion of the poor Clinton, mothers with children under six. Now, they are trying to get mothers of children three months old to work fragmented schedules at MacDonalds. Mother's who have no transportation (ever try to include four bus rides in your working day, two of them with an infant you are getting to and from day care? It can easily add two hours at both ends of your working day. That's a real good way to reduce maternal stress on mothers, right up there with those home visits). But then, we really think the poor shouldn't have children at all, don't we? Never mind that it is the most universal of human desires.

By the way, the additional allowance a mother on welfare gets for a second child might pay for the diapers but won't pay for much else. People don't have more children to get more welfare.

[blkgrl]

31. Staying home with the kids

nine times out of ten will not benefit anyone. These kids need to be in some sort of educational program by the time they're 2 so they can get off to a better start in life, at least educationally. My boyfriend's cousin has been at home with her son, and at 3, he still cannot talk (even though technically she's a stay at home mother, she spends most of her time out and her only interaction with the child involves yelling).

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blkgrl]

41. Demactivist, why are you trying to label me as a bigot?

I'm a young, black woman and I'm getting extremely offended at the inferences you are making. First off, I AM liberal, more liberal in fact, then most on this board.

Denial is NOT the answer. I understand that you are extremely biased about this topic, so we will most likely not get anywhere in our discussion. For the last time, I want to see a system where those who need welfare because they're uncapable of working will get it, and those who need it because they're are lazy and/or making the wrong decisions over and over again, will have to work like everybody else. Its that simple.

[DEMActivist]

45. I'm trying to point out YOUR bigotry

Perhaps you just don't get it. I don't believe that. I believe you came here with these tired, old canards to start a flame fest on DU.

Here's a DARE for you:

Find one your own defined "welfare queens" which you say are abundant. Hire her. Make it impossible to fail. Make sure you personally address every problem she encounters going from welfare to a living wage job.

Then come back here and report your success or failure. Better yet, post a daily diary of your efforts.

Somehow I doubt you'll take the challenge and prove me wrong. You have no intent to change the system or take any responsibility for it.

[blkgrl]

50. I'm sure you'll see no problem with these disturbing findings

> Family receipt of welfare may be more damaging to preteens and adolescents than to very young children. Among families with preteen and adolescent children, welfare benefits were associated with an increased likelihood that these children would drop out of school and that they would become single parents. These negative effects were not seen among adolescents who were on welfare only during their early childhood. <

http://www4.nas.edu/news.nsf/0/5a8188040af223b385256ca70072da95?OpenDocument

[DEMActivist]

59. Will you deal with reality then?

Will you take it upon yourself to change just one family? Will you accept responsibility for just one child you needs your help?

Will you find just ONE of your infamous "welfare queens" and make it possible for her to move from welfare to work?

Or is it someone else's responsibility? What's your excuse for complaining without offering just ONE human being your assistance?

[blkgrl]

62. by adulthood, its too late

Will you find just ONE of your infamous "welfare queens" and make it possible for her to move from welfare to work?

By the time someone is an adult, its really too late to "reform" him/her. If you look at the statistics you'll note that someone is more likely to get on welfare if they grew up on it. If you re-read my original post, you'll understand that this is the problem that my post is addressing. When a child grows up his/her entire life on welfare, the next natural step will be to go on welfare as an adult--many times after having several children. That same logic doesn't hold true for most people who did not grow up on welfare. I'm at a turning point in my life where I could decide to have 5 or 6 kids and get on welfare, but I choose not to--my parents set a better example for me, and I will, in turn, try to uphold that ideal.

My point is, the system should be changed so that eventually, children will not be raised in a home where it seems acceptable to not work and depend on the government for assistance. THAT is the goal. My goal is not to change welfare moms, one at a time.

[DEMActivist]

68. Whew...whoooo, boy...

This post is just laughable.

Bottom line...."not my job, man."

And, there, you have the problem in a nutshell. How did I know that's exactly where you would end up?

[Mairead]

70. Do please look into it more carefully

Note this beauty:
White and black children whose families received public assistance were found to score lower on reading tests than children whose families did not receive assistance. In addition, white children of families on welfare also scored lower on math and behavior tests than white children whose families received no assistance. However, when researchers accounted for the effects of other factors --such as a mother's education, marital status, and work history; a family's length of time in poverty; and local unemployment rates -- children on welfare performed almost as well as children whose families had never received welfare.

See anything propagandistic about it?

[blkgrl]

78. But you missed the main point of it

However, when researchers accounted for the effects of other factors --such as a mother's education, marital status, and work history; a family's length of time in poverty; and local unemployment rates

The point is that all of those factors are tied to one being on welfare--its a cycle! Do you get it yet? It passes down generation by generation. I would like to see that cycle end, wouldn't you?

[Mairead]

91. Gee, why didn't you quote the whole sentence?

What would have been your reason for leaving of this very significant part (emphasised below), hmmmmm?

However, when researchers accounted for the effects of other factors --such as a mother's education, marital status, and work history; a family's length of time in poverty; and local unemployment rates -- children on welfare performed almost as well as children whose families had never received welfare.

And I'd bet money that that 'almost as well' means that they didn't fully control for sources of random variance.

Nowhere in there is there any implication of generationality or cyclic character. All it says is that once random sources of variance are controlled such that the only variable is whether or not the family is being supported by public funds, one cannot tell how a particular family is being supported by looking at how well the kids do. The performance of the child does not predict the source of family income.

Are you sure your handle shouldn't be 'whtboy'? Most Black folk I know don't aspire to be Connerly clones. Most women I know have a keen appreciation of how tough single-parenthood is even if they've been more fortunate themselves. It's mostly the White boys who don't 'get it' in the way you're displaying here.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nannah]

86. thank you kenzee, you are knowledgeable about public assistance!

As a professional who has worked in and around public assistance programs in a rural community for more than 20 years i find your information accurate with my experience and professional understanding of peope who receive public assistance.

my particular focus has been people who receive public assistance and suffer from permanent and long term disabilities. It is curious that the picture of a cheat on welfare is so much more prominent in people's sense of who collects public assistance than the folks who have severe limitations in their ability to be economically self sufficient. it is curious because there are so many more people with cognitive, mental health, and plysical limitations who receive economic, medical and food support than there are cheats.

what needs to be addressed is that technology has changed the way people generate income, vastly narrowing the skills that carry economic value. For many, the traditional ways they were able to generate sufficient income to support their families have disappeared.

And as has been mentioned already in this thread, many people who receive public assistance DO WORK. They work for WalMart, McDonalds, Nursing Homes, motels, restaurants, retail stores, and all the large corporations who employ people too few hours to earn a living wage or qualify for benefits. benefits don't put money in a shareholder's pay envelope. when you marvel at the cheap prices at walmart, ask to know how many of your tax dollars also went to provide child care, public assistance, medical coupons, and food stamps for walmart employees so walmart could offer great returns to investors. (small rant here!!!!)

there are pages more to be said on how our narrow focus on economic gain as the primary measure of one's value as a human being crushes people. Or how for most people, it is the circumstances and genetic heritage of their birth that sets up most of their life, not specifically the success or failure of their own efforts. George W. Bush is certainly an example of that in spades.... but that is another rant and not very useful.

wow, i really got going. enough for now!

[lancemurdoch]

27. How about the wealthy?

"Its not right that some people who are perfectly capable of working choose not to, and live off the backs of taxpayers like you and me."

Well if this is a problem, why are you going after people on welfare instead of people like Paris Hilton, Andrew Luster, John E. DuPont and so forth. Paris Hilton has never worked a day in her damned life, and she is living off of the backs of forty-year-old Mexican maids at the hotels she inherited. Why are we trying to shake nickels out of people who live in small apartments in crappy housing projects even tighter when she has multiple mansions, and puts the wealth created by other workers up her nose.

We don't need people like you, or Dean in the Democratic party, I'd be happy if you'd get the hell out of it. Gore could have won Florida if Green voters had voted for him, but he pandered too much to people like you and lost.

[blkgrl]

37. No corporate welfare for the rich either

I'm consistent, are you?

[lancemurdoch]

44. no, you're not

No, you're not consistent. Paris Hilton has never worked a day in her life, and lives off the wealth created by thousands of maids, bellhops and front desk clerks at the Hilton hotels. If they decided to strike so as to get the rest of that wage, squeezing the profit to 0, you can bet the police would show up en masse to protect Ms. Hilton's claim to her expropriation, and perhaps Bush would even order the workers to work against their will, like he did to the dockworkers on the West Coast. In the same manner as how someone who inherits an apartment building does not have to work as he can live off the labor of his tenants. If one of the tenants is laid off due to the people managing the economies foul-ups, and he falls behind in rent, the police will come to the door to toss him and his family out on the street, because due to the high unemployment rate, he is now unable to pay his tribute to the landlord, and must vacate his home. This seems to me to be the main purpose of government - why else does the US lock up a higher percentage of it's population than anywhere in the world. Of course, bashing people in housing projects is par for the course, but criticizing the idle rich who live off of workers in the same manner is a heresy within the corporate media.

[blkgrl]

67. bashing people in housing projects?

Hopefully you're not referring to me. I don't care if someone chooses not to work, the issue at hand is whether someone can choose not to work because he/she expects government to support.

[blkgrl]

69. Why do some refuse to acknowledge that welfare can do more harm

than good? Yes, some of us really need it, but some just abuse the system! This is not about hating the poor or "welfare queens."

Long term dependence on welfare takes away self esteem and confidence. Children who grow up in these homes end up in jail or many times drop out of school. Why? Because they never got the chance to see their mothers work hard to accomplish something. They have no role models in sight. This is a problem. Yes, our government has billions and can afford to give money to whoever, but its not about the money so much as it is about the people who are being destroyed.

[DEMActivist]

72. So your answer is....

Don't use MY tax dollars to make sure the kid has food. If his mother is a lazy welfare queen, let him starve to death. We don't need those kinds of people in our society. Kill them all. Starvation is the best way to accomplish that.

[blkgrl]

81. if the system is reformed

The welfare queen phenomenon would disappear pretty quickly; and they'll update their lifestyle choices appropriately. No need for the kids to starve, its called get a job.

[Yupster]

131. But our society is not willing

to let someone starve. You could refuse to work, and someone in society will feed you.

That is especially true if you are a mother. The society is not willing to let your kids starve as a lesson to you.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

124. Welfare And The Culture Of Poverty

are complex problems and to suggest all recipients lack self esteem betrays an ingnorance born out of leading a sheltered life and living in one of the most homogeneous states in the nation... A state with one third the folks of metropolitan Orlando (2,000,000, people)....

That being said there is a "culture of poverty" that needs to be addressed and ameliorated... It doesn't take a Einstein to figure out that most of the folks living in this culture want to get out....

[realFedUp]

33. Corporate welfare....

Let's start by double taxing any American companies
that move offshore. Let's set the environmental and
labor standards for overseas American owned companies
to the same standards as inside the country. Let's
reduce the salaries of CEO's to those of President
with option packages according to how well the companies
do.
Let's not give government R & D and contracts to companies
who refuse to do any of the above.

[rucky]

36. Child Care is the missing link

Clinton did a great job with welfare reform, but that was the only thing that he couldn't get through.

[Gin]

40. Close corporate loopholes....the biggest welfare system on earth.

gin

[bread_and_roses]

46. Clinton's welfare reform

was a sop to the right wing. There is always room for reform, improvement, efficiency, but this wasn't it. It has caused enormous suffering. Read the homeless stats. Around here, they are just about back to peering under beds to make sure a woman on welfare doesn't have a man living with her. Never mind that the man in question can't find any sort of job. I went back to work as the mother of a six week old infant, with a car, good child care, a good support system, a flexible schedule, and a job that paid enough to support me. Ironically, at the time I worked with young mothers on welfare. There is a huge difference in trying to work with no car, unreliable child care, at a physically demanding job with no flexibility for sick babies, and that doesn't pay enough to pay the rent AND buy diapers.

[Hamlette]

115. this is a complete mischaracterization of welfare reform

peering under beds has NOTHING to do with welfare reform. Welfare reform has to do with "entitlements" AND time limits.

People in the "industry" as it were, welcomed welfare reform. And the ones I work with are bleeding heart, knee jerk, liberal commie socialists. Time limits provided some motivation to those who could transition off assistance. Those who could not have no time limit.

Cars, child care, medical care are are essential supports the government can provide. Mentoring has not been successful in my state...good idea...didn't work very well.

[Hamlette]

49. I'm legal counsel for my state's welfare office

A few misunderstandings:
1. The average welfare mom is 28 years old and has fewer then 2 kids (1.7). Her husband/significant other left her. (Those are the stats. Seems wrong but it's true.) She stays on welfare less than 2 years. Her "welfare benefit" in my state is about $450 a month. She gets a little more for food stamps but there is little subsidized housing. She only gets child care if she's working or in school. We don't support all educational programs.

2. The average LONG term welfare mom has an average of 3 "significant" barriers to work. A significant barrier is something like a disability...or two, or a disabled child, or lack of transportation. I've never met one person who wanted to be on welfare. It's not a choice. Everyone one of them has dreams of getting off.

3. The welfare rolls in the US dropped by 40% in the years BEFORE welfare reform (1993-1996). Although we are unsure exactly why, it is widely believed it was because of the good economy.

4. Welfare reform limits the amount of time someone can be on welfare now. In some states its as little as 18 months. In my state it's 3 years. The max the feds will allow is 5 years. The republican reauthorization bill will require that a recipient work about 35 hours a week. There are problems with that, one is that it leaves no time for obtaining skills for the people who can gain skills AND you have to fund child care for those hours of work, which is up in the air in the reauth bill. (20% are exempted from the time limit. We have time limited fewer than 100 families in the last 3 years. Very few have been extended into the 20%)

5. Work site programs are outrageously expensive to run. You have to be willing to fund them. They cost more than the welfare payment. Tranditionally states have not been willing to fund them. They also take jobs away from others. We partner with employers by contract and help subsidize the first 6 months of employment. If the employer keeps the former welfare recipient employed after the subsidy ends, they get a cash bonus. They are difficult programs and have some legal restrictions.

6. As was said by someone else, some people just can't work. For lack of a nice way to say it, they just don't have the brain power. It's a larger group than you might think. These are not people who are sitting around because they don't want to work. They have tried. We have tried to train them. After several failures they may lack the motivation to try again, but it's hard to blame them for that. It's not a matter of choice. I loved the line, live with it. It's true.

7. Some have to leave jobs when they hit the welfare income limit because of health and child care. If you have 2 kids needing child care and your job doesn't offer health insurance or your copay is high, you can't afford to work. We need to support the working poor better. The last reauth talks I heard about had gutted the additional money to support child care.

8. We're talking less than 2% of the federal budget for welfare (including child care and food stamps). ALL of that money goes to kids. (I wish I could move this to number 1 in my list. It really is the first consideration.) You don't get welfare if you don't have dependent children living with you. You cut off all support because the mom "doesn't want to work" you cut off all support to the children too. That isn't fair to the kids.

[DuctapeFatwa]

56. Please do not spoil the demonization of the evil poor with facts

For one thing, facts are for thinking people.

Those who spend their valuable time trying to figure out how to cut benefits to people who get $450 a month in a generous state like yours are against thinking, which is probably just as well, as they are clearly unsuited for it.

Another thing to consider is that the only sense of self-worth that some people have comes from their money. Without that money, they would be worthless, in their own eyes, so the poor are about all the psychological relief they have.

Finally, someone in your position should know that right-thinking Americans have never minded paying a little extra if they can be assured that it will cause more human suffering,

[maxanne]

63. thanks Hamlette

for injecting some fact into this dialogue.

I am always amazed by how right wing invective creeps into our language during these discussions. blkgrl reports "welfare queens" and advocates welfare recipients being "forced" to work. Yes, work will make us free - where have we heard that before? :eyes:

We claim reverence for motherhood and children in this country, and nothing could be further from the truth. We have a lot of squabbling here about what ammounts to a very miniscule portion of the budget. There is no mention of the increasing number of homeless families. I see no mention of the 1 million homeless children in the US. By all means, lets keep undercutting the safety nets, to satisfy ourselves that somewhere a cheat isn't ripping off the system to get a manicure.

Let us continue to ignore the bloated Pentagon budget - and the staggering ammounts of money they can't account for every year. Instead, let's adopt the rhetoric and belief system of the right wing for ourselves, and blame the poor.

The two biggest reasons women stay on welfare are health insurance and child care. Women with babies and small children need health care, kids go to the doctor all the time. The minute they make "too much" money - they lose that benefit. If we had a workable health care system in this country it would be a jump start to improving the lives of poor women and their children. There needs to be a workable child care system. There also need to be jobs that pay a living wage, transportation, and affordable housing. The deck gets stacked higher and higher against the poor - and what are we doing? We're talking about the poor using rightwingspeak.

Thank you to the people who mentioned corporate welfare. Again - easier to adopt the Rushian philosophy and blame the poor. Educational programs for welfare recipients are cut back all the time. We sure don't want to give them a handout. Far better to give the handout to Archer Daniels Midland, or Brown and Root.

[blkgrl]

87. Do you guys actually KNOW people on welfare?

Or are you just basing your information on abstract theories and ideals? I know and am related to dozens of people on welfare and I'm speaking about what I actually see on a daily basis. Maybe if I didn't know anyone on welfare I'd be this idealistic as well.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pop goes the weasel]

98. I've known people on welfare

Some of them are my students.

One of them was my sister. In return for $200 in food stamps, she was required to turn over the entirety of the $150 her 2 kids got as child support. Yeah, that was reeeeal nice.

And I've known people making less than $400 a month who couldn't get any assistance at all. Sometimes they had to quit work, too. Car repairs are expensive. They were lucky to have families that helped them--even though their families were poor, too.

So you have a business and have family on welfare? Is your complaint that you can't get them to work for you? Hmmm. Maybe you should spring for some family counseling. Maybe you could barter for it with some other businessperson so it wouldn't be so expensive. Or if your family is really abusing the system, you could report them.

[blkgrl]

101. Can't help anyone who doesn't want to be helped

They simply do not want to work, period. Like I said before, we provide a healthcare provider service and mainly employ nurses, but there is always room for family if they're interest.

[pop goes the weasel]

104. Well, you are trying then

I'm sorry you have such a strange family. Most people I have ever known would be thrilled to have a family member who could offer them work. I can see why you are exasperated.

[bread_and_roses]

64. Hurrah

and AMEN! Thank you. I have these figures for my area at work but not here. BTW, here, at least, some of those employers getting subsidies for welfare hires engage in a kind of churning, getting rid of a person as soon as the subsidy for that individual is run out and hiring a new subsidy. The first worker then, of course, has to reapply for welfare.

[blm]

76. Kudos Hamlette.

I don't understand the use of rightwing talking points to make a case here at DU, but you rebutted them beautifully.

[bread_and_roses]

52. And by the way

most mothers on welfare do not have four or five children. I am at home and don't have the figures in front of me, and I don't feel like doing the search you should have done before you wrote something so full of misinformed cliches about people on welfare. Most mothers on welfare work whenever they can. They quit or lose jobs for a variety of reasons typical of low-wage workers whether or not they are on welfare. The "benefit" they are most often concerned over losing is Medicaid, and that will never change until we have National Health Care like every other civilized country.

[blkgrl]

89. How many people do you know on welfare?

I know and am related to dozens. What about you? I'm speaking from experience, are you?

[pop goes the weasel]

102. Either your family is an anomoly

or you have very little empathy. By now, you've had the chance to read the statistics that several people have posted. Your anecdotal evidence is no better than mine or anyone else's. The main difference is that those of us who know people on welfare who are working, looking for work, or wishing they could work know people who fit the overall statistical pattern, whereas you describe statistical outliers.

[blkgrl]

103. You still don't get it

This post is not about those who are trying, its about those who aren't. Giving welfare to the group who is not trying is destroying the futures of the children involved. You can argue with me until you're blue in the face but that will not change the facts.

[pop goes the weasel]

108. this is really all about your family

I understand that you are frustrated with them. The facts are that there really are few people who are doing like you describe these relatives doing. But you of course want help--permanent life-changing help--for your relatives.

So, what's going on with them? Are they drug-addicts? Uneducated? Mentally or physically disabled in any way?

The problem with long-term poverty is that most of the long-term poor are going to stay poor even if welfare benefits are taken away. There is a certain percentage that simply can not work, no matter what, and then there are the majority that can only work if massive intervention takes place, and a very few who are actively trying to avoid working. If there was further tightening of welfare opportunities, the people who can't work no matter what and the people who would work if, say, someone stayed at home with their brain-damaged 30 year old child, would be tossed into the streets.

So, that brings us to your relatives. How would you go about getting them to work without causing further harm to the other groups?

[blkgrl]

117. Not so much about my family, its about helping

prevent a permanent underclass from forming, which is what welfare is helping to bring about. If you notice, I said some are family, others are not. That was a good and funny attempt to disrespect me though. Hope you enjoyed it.

[maxanne]

119. is it about helping

or punishing, blkgrl?

[pop goes the weasel]

121. Skin thin today?

I'm not surprised. You are definitely getting pounded. I apologize for being disrespectful; I'm just trying to feel out where you are coming from.

I am still waiting for you to present something other than anecdotal evidence that there is a "permanent underclass" and not just a few isolated pockets of people who are avoiding work because of...I don't know. Show me also some studies on why this "class" of people is not working. Please also explain how they stay on welfare now that the maximum in any of the states is 5 years unless there is waiver granted the family. If you really are interested in plugging loopholes, you have to have more than vague stories of knowing someone who flouts the system.

[Hamlette]

122. blkgrl

those who are not trying will only get welfare for a short period of time (18 months to 5 years MAX). During that time they have to be involved in work activities (work preparedness training, work search, works programs) etc for at least 15 hours per week. It is pretty carefully monitored (work search is limited to a few hours a week, they can't spend the full 15 hours looking for work.)

If they don't work or do training or something similar, they don't get welfare. Period. It's the law. (There is a small percentage who are exempted under the MOE formula but we have to give reasons we exempted them.)

If you know someone who is getting welfare and not participating "to the full extent of their abilities" in a return to work program, you should report them for welfare fraud. I recognize that people can fall through the cracks, maybe that's what happened to the family you know.

One crack they do not fall through is the federal time limit. It is a MAXIMUM of five years. When the clock has run, there are no benefits.

If they are on welfare after 5 years it is because they have a barrier to employment. It must be documented. We are audited regularily for those things.

The myth of the person who doesn't want to work is just that. I will admit there are some out there but it is a very tiny minority. You may know someone in that minority. Don't judge the rest of them by the one or few you know.

I've worked with them for 6 years. As counsel for the Department I see the very hard cases. All of them. And by hard cases I mean the ones who appear to not want to work. I don't wish their life on anyone.

I believe, to a certain extent, work is good for people. Mostly because it makes us stakeholders in our communities. Multigenerational welfare families (a thing of the past because of welfare reform) are disenfranchised for the most part. I am not saying why that is, I'm just saying it is.

Not only is the dollar amount low, in my state (which is average) .15% of the population receives financial assistance. (A slightly larger percentage receives food stamps.)

[DemExpat]

123. I can understand what you are saying, blkgrl.....

and I agree with your observations when I compare them to a sometimes over-generous welfare system here in The Netherlands.

Taking into account economic conditions,(less jobs) and intelligence/education levels, waiting lists for child care, and, comparable to the States, an excellent public transportation system, decent minimum wage,and basic health care - welfare IS a vicious cycle once some people get used to benefits without working for them.

It makes people complacent and, when provided for years by the government, makes many people feel ENTITILED to them.... indignant when asked to actually DO something for the paycheck.....

It also has great influence on education levels and ambitions of welfare recipient's children, I agree with you on this as well.

The government now is trying to turn back some of the welfare policies because the excesses were becoming intolerable. I support an excellent support system for people in acute need, but a system too vulnerable to abuse and over-use must be reformed for everybody's benefit, and for sustainability....... IMO.

I back the poster's (ayeshahaqqiqa) ideas above (Post nr. 9) about early child care, education, Head Start, decriminalizing drug use, support systems, helping the mentally ill, along with improved public transporation, higher minimum wage....

I don't find your post bigoted at all, and welcome the discussion of this sensitive but important social issue.

DemEx

[burr]

125. What about healthcare reform...

banning insurance companies from discriminating against those with pre-existing conditions, requiring them to provide the same low community rating to everyone in the same region, allowing the uninsured to buy into the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan at a reasonable premium, and providing subsidies and tax credits to small businesses and workers to help them buy the necessary health benefits? Or do you believe that welfare reform can be done without healthcare reform? Because the only other place to go in a crisis is Medicaid, and welfare is one of the few ways you can become eligible for this now.

Do we just let those in trouble die, or provide them with affordable health insurance in the workplace? :shrug:

[maxanne]

111. yep

I was one.

[quaker bill]

55. I have and argument with the concept.

Is it welfare that robs people of self-esteem?

Or is it that people with low self-esteem end up on welfare more often than others?

I would argue the latter. Given the notion that this holds water, and my experience suggests it does, then the fix is not a reform of welfare, but a reform of a society that produces it's clients in such large numbers.

Republicans like to fix the symptoms of a problem, rather than finding it's root in society for true reformation. They choose this approach because it suits their puritan view of morality, it is easier to seem like you are doing something, and is also generally much less expensive.

Examples include the anti-drug and anti-abortion movements. Their solution is to make these things illegal. It is relatively cheap to seem like you are doing something about drugs, just bust some people and make some news. The availability and use of drugs does not decrease. Ban some type of abortion and it seems that you are doing something while the actual total number of them may not decrease at all.

It is government by "we have a program for that", it may not be effective, but no one can say they are not trying.

Real solutions involve compassion and investment, emotional and financial involvement. Such things are not currently on the menu of options, leaving no billionare behind is far too important.

If you want to solve the welfare problem, invest in schools and community infrastructure, not just a little bit, but actually "leave no child behind". If you want to reduce drug use, invest in treatment programs and community infrastructure to give people hope for a better life. If you want to reduce the number of abortions, adopt a mother and her child, or perhaps make the sperm donors financially responsible for what they leave behind. (buy stock in Trojan if they ever do this)

[blkgrl]

90. Its circular

is it that people with low self-esteem end up on welfare more often than others?

Its circular, a cycle. Just like the dieter who ends up gaining weight feeling bad about him/herself then ends up gaining more weight and feeling worse.

[Mairead]

65. I think that if you check the facts, you'll discover that most people

want to work. The minority who don't are either (a) unsuited to work (they're damaged enough that nobody's willing to pay for the work they can do) or (b) unwanted by 'the system' because of age, skin color, ethnicity, job exporting, or some other factor over which the victim has no control.

The problem isn't putting the people on the fringes to work. The amount of money they take from us is completely trivial compared to the amount taken from us by the wealthy elites. The real 'welfare queens' are those whose penthouse apartments, Mercedes, and skiing hols in Gstaad are paid for by us, because they've bought laws saying that we've to pay for expenses that, under capitalist dogma, should be borne by stockholders.

The problem--besides ending welfare for the elites--is finding enough work for the people who are both able and willing to work! And that doesn't mean finding a middle-aged computer engineer a job sacking groceries, either.

[pop goes the weasel]

71. some specifics on welfare recipients

Work and Barriers to Work among Welfare Recipients in 2002

Characteristics of Food Stamp Households: Fiscal Year 2002

Hunger in a Time of Plenty

No one tells me I don't know what I'm talking about and gets away without being slapped in the head with statistics.

:)

[blkgrl]

118. Another insightful article

Turns out black and hispanic women are the most adversely affected by the "welfare trap." Could that be why this is not an issue of concern to most on this board?

http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/irp/pubs/dp112997.pdf

[burr]

120. Please sweetheart...no more PDFs!!! DO IT FOR ME...

Who is this author anyway, another campaign contributor for Tommy Thompson? Just the expert advise we need. :9

[pop goes the weasel]

126. Outdated info

A 1997 version of a 1994 article. And, all together now, when was the Welfare Reform Act of 1996? Was it 1996? Very good. In fact, the data used comes from no later than 1993.

That aside, the article you bring up makes the point that your argument that public assistance is some sort of dependency trap has been in currency since at least 14th century England. (p5) Can we agree that blacks and hispanics were not likely to have featured prominently on the public rolls in 14th century England? As the report says, "The reason for the effects of race and ethnicity and geographical location are undoubtedly very complex. They are proxies for a number of unobserved factors...." (p31)

So, what have we learned? First, this study is not applicable to today's welfare picture. Second, people have been complaining about poor folks being lazy since before current categories of race and ethnicity enterered the picture. Third, you have to look harder at why some people continue to need assistance.

[burr]

128. how insightful!!!

What do they say?..knowledge is power, but ignorance is bliss!

[Hamlette]

127. "welfare trap"

I noticed you said you live in NY. NY has a five year limit on welfare. NY also has a works program. People on welfare who do not find work immediately must work in the works program. NY is also a county run program. If you don't like what your county does, you should talk to your county officials.

New York also has a higher than average percentage of children in poverty. The percentage of children living in poverty in NY state is 21%. And you want to cut them off welfare? I don't get it.

Think about that. In one of the richest states in the union, one if five kids live in poverty.

While there are some problems with welfare, I'm not in favor of stopping all benefits to children.

[CWebster]

74. No socializing the means and privatizing the profits

for the corporate welfare state - is how I would reform US welfare. And increase social spending for the common good with a cradle to grave social policy. Ultimately--what else matters as much than the humanity of our civilization? It should be the priority and driving force behind all things.

[Liberal Veteran]

80. I think that childcare and re-education are key.

In other words, anyone on the down and out should be given everything they need to enter the workplace with marketable skills. And that means real living wage jobs, not minimum wage McJobs that so-called "workfare" provide.

[Hamlette]

84. "re-education"

is a VERY hard sell at the legislature. The argument we hear is "why should I use tax dollars to pay for someone else's kid's education?" They also argue that anyone could just quit their job and go to the state to pay their way through college. That could happen. So, when do you pay for a college education and when do you not pay? The answers are not as easy as they might seem. Or, you put anyone in college on welfare? I don't know.

We can only pay for education if the person can finish in 2 years and never for "graduate work". (I think that might be a state limitations, don't know about other states.)

The best educational system in the world was the one Ronald Reagan dismantled in California. Tragedy. We really should go back to it. If the tuition were free, it would help.

[Liberal Veteran]

100. I understand that completely....

Personally, I think college up to a Bachelor's degree should be free for everyone. Our society is has changed. We are no longer a society where a person with a high school diploma has a really good shot at making it on their own. Some level of vocational or college is practically a requirement.

I think there must be standards. Such as maintaining a certain grade point average, but I think all people should be entitled to a college education if they want one.

Do I think that is likely? Not with the "Me Me Me!" attitude that currently permeates our society, but I think we need it.

[grasswire]

97. there would be a lot more money in the pot...

...if Medicare and Social Security were means tested. Everything else is means tested -- food stamps, student loans, small business loans, housing aid, yadda yadda. So why can't Medicare be made the secondary payer for people who are carrying other insurance? And why can't Medicare be means tested and not available for people whose income, say, is greater than $150,000 annually or who have assets in excess of $1 million? And why can't Social Security be tested in the same way? If you have assets of more than $750,000 at age 62 you get your social security lifetime investment back in a lump sum with interest, but no monthly benefit. Something like that.

Why not? Billions of dollars would be available for those at the lower end of the system.

Look, we spend more money administering aid than is distributed. Most of it is spent keeping money from needy people, monitoring the system.

Time to set the system on its head.

[grasswire]

99. and......

...we can thank Rush Limbaugh for the demonization of the poor that has led to widespread class division that just enhances the problems.

[Padraig18]

113. Zap! You're dead!

You just stepped on the 'third rail of American politics'! Old people vote, and if you try to substantively alter the system along any meaningful timeline, you will be out of office faster than a prom dress comes off in the back seat of your daddy's car! :P

[grasswire]

114. sorry

But well-to-do seniors are getting welfare in the form of medical care and retirement payments. It's time to call it welfare. Maybe then it would be easier to install means testing.

Most senior Americans don't want to be thought "on the dole."

A little leadership on this issue and some public education would be useful.

[burr]

105. What welfare system???

I wasn't aware our nation had one, at least not at the taxpayer's expense.

If you're unemployable, disabled, or in debt because of medical bills..the hell with you, because there is no "welfare system" available to help you out!

In America it's every man for himself, me against you. You against me. That is our welfare system, it's called "compassionate conservatism." :spank:

[Mairead]

112. The corporate-welfare system

The one that assures that the wealthy elites get our tax money via subsidies to the corporations they own.

Oh, that's right--that's not 'welfare', is it. That's 'making it possible for the most productive members of our society to improve their contributions'. Or something.

[burr]

116. this is corporate selfare...taxpayer funding to the selfish.

And it doesn't matter whether you're a corporation hoping to get a nobid contract, or a computer company building up a government "matrix" on individuals without criminal records...the question should always be the same! Does this use of our taxdollars serve the public welfare?

[Nikia]

129. Health care and child care

Basic health care should be government subsidized along with child care. This could help a lot. Realistically, no one can afford day care and health insurance on a $6.00 or $7.00 job. Some try to make it, but others turn to welfare. Many low skill entry level jobs do not pay well and employment services don't help people find the best low paying jobs so they apply to their local grocery store with the help wanted sign, not the best paying factory in town. Regardless, if businesses operate as they do and we want low price products, there will have to be people employed in those low paying jobs. It is all fine and good that some poor people get some training and are self sufficient on their $11.00 jobs. What about the rest? I am just saying that there will always be an underclass. Providing health care and child care for low income working parents and slightly higher wage earners, maybe on a sliding scale, will make going to work worth the effort. I personally have no problem in having my tax dollars helping out poor people. It costs over $20,000 a year to pay for someone in prision. I'd rather prevent this and save that money.

[bread_and_roses]

132. Now I am regretfull

that I was so hard on you, blkgrl. I started thinking about how young you are, and that you have grown up in an environment saturated with these lies and demonizations of the poor. You probably have no historical context to put this into...for instance, that back in the early 70's we were actually discussing the possible merits of a guaranteed minimum income in this rich country. You probably had no idea that there was anything to take exception to in your remarks, or that there was any reason to do some research. Which I hope the responses to your post motivate you to do. And yes, I do know people on welfare, including some very close to me.