Friday, April 13, 2018

What is Welfare Fraud / Waste?

So over here Jerry made one of his exaggerating statements with no source. No wonder he really likes Trump and I have hard time taking him serious at times.
There is massive fraud and waste in the government welfare systems, which Trump has ordered reduced just yesterday, and today we hear of a local millionaire who has been collecting food stamps just to prove the point.

Yes, many on welfare "need it" and are struggling-- nothing wrong with that but the longer it goes on and the easier it is to get, the less we are actually helping folks towards self-sufficiency. It is too easy to get ON welfare and too hard to get off. That needs to change, and government should strongly encourage and enable that change. OR (eventually) get out of the "charity business" altogether.
Before this Sean had stated:
The problem with this argument (as has been discussed before) is that we know that there's not this massive underclass of people just sucking of the teat of government when they could be doing something productive. Most of our "welfare" spend is on children, seniors, and the disabled, while the able-bodied folks tend to cycle through pretty rapidly.
And I had stated:
I have to disagree or we would not have so many unlucky and undereducated children in this country who are trapped in generational poverty and broken homes.  Please remember that I am not concerned about the short term spend. I am worried about the longer term hopelessness and even more screwed up kids.
Now with this in mind, I am going to define the following:
  • Welfare Fraud: When people lie to get benefits they should not qualify for.
  • Welfare Operation Costs: The costs incurred to distribute money and prevent welfare fraud.
  • Welfare Waste: When excessive costs are incurred to complete the function.
  • Welfare Promotion / Propagation (WPP): When the giving of services and benefits encourages recipients to stay dependent. And worse yet leads to their children falling into or staying in the trap. (ie welfare pays better than work?, extra money with an additional child?, etc)
Thoughts?


Here are some links from that previous post.
 Wiki Codependency
Interesting discussion of Govt and codependency
Poverty 101

95 comments:

John said...

VOX Trump Welfare Review
FOX News Trump Welfare Reform

jerrye92002 said...

If it will ease your mind, perhaps I will say it as "there is massive inefficacy in the welfare system." If the point is to move people out of poverty and dependence, and towards work and self-sufficiency, it seems a miserable failure. The fact that 20% of Wisconsin's "poor" left welfare immediately rather than even look for work, says we are spending too much. The 1994 welfare reform's work requirements reduced the rolls about 50%. [If you want to quibble about "sources," look it up.] Trump proposes work requirements for the able-bodied, the number of which have increased about 25% over the last 20 years or so. How do "we" benefit from paying this labor pool to sit idle?

John said...

Inefficacy is more accurate.

It sure would be nice if you had some data for all these opinions you have.
And I really am not interested in what you think happened 22 years ago...

The issue is what is happening today and how should it be improved. Since we all would love to have every citizen happy, self sufficient, responsible, academically capable, employable, employed, etc.

Laurie said...

I think your referring to welfare is too broad or too general. Are you talking about snap (food stamps)? medicaid ? housing assistance ? I think there is a program called tanf that maybe used to be called afdc. I really don't know much about it except for I agree with Sean that most of these forms of assistance go to children, seniors, and the disabled.

Laurie said...

The Republican war on struggling Americans takes another cruel turn

John said...

I like to consider the source of horror stories

John said...

Balance 6 Major Programs
SM List of 80+ Fed Programs
Heritage Poverty and Social Programs

John said...

I liked this statement from the Heritage link...

"Instead of seeking to outspend
other nations, the U.S. should
seek to reduce poverty by promoting
self-sufficiency through
increased work and marriage
."

John said...

Laurie,
What is your long term goal for welfare and social spending?

Do you agree with mine?

"We all would love to have every citizen happy, self sufficient, responsible, academically capable, employable, employed, etc."

Is this what you think many children should be allowed to deal with?
Characteristics of Childrens Families

John said...

Here is one for Jerry to disagree with Value of Headstart

John said...

Welfare Reform 2.0

Laurie said...

I don't see the Waldman column as a horror story. He is my favorite columnist.
What parts of his column did you disagree with? Do you dispute the facts on which he is basing his opinions?

His predictions of the impact of implementing an underfunded work requirement seem reasonable to me. Life will be more cruel for many of those living in poverty who loose their benefits.

John said...

He lost me about here...

"But that doesn’t mean Republicans will stop trying to chip away at whatever meager benefits Americans might count on to mitigate the suffering that poverty imposes."

We spend 1+ Trillion dollars a year on those "meager benefits" in the USA.

He loses all credibility when he makes such exagerations.

John said...

Laurie,
Again...

Laurie,
What is your long term goal for welfare and social spending?

Do you agree with mine?

"We all would love to have every citizen happy, self sufficient, responsible, academically capable, employable, employed, etc."

Is this what you think many children should be allowed to deal with?
Characteristics of Childrens Families

Laurie said...

I think the meager part refers to the deep poverty that many people have to cope with. The total spending sounds like a lot because we have a lot of poor people in our country.

I do not have a goal of eliminate poverty. My goal is more like alleviate poverty as the poor will always be with us. I expect many of my students could be future welfare recipients of some form. Some people just have a hard time getting by without assistance for a variety of reasons.

about -"We all would love to have every citizen happy, self sufficient, responsible, academically capable, employable, employed, etc." that seems very unreachable to me.

John said...

That is sad... :-) It is too bad you don't have more faith in your fellow citizens.

I will adjust the wording slightly... Can you now support it?

"We all would love to have every non-disabled citizen happy, self sufficient, responsible, academically capable, employable, employed, etc."

Of course the disabled will always be with us and they will require care. I thought that went without saying after all these years.

Laurie said...

There is really very little difference between my students, who are labeled disabled, and many other students at my school. It sometimes comes down to which teachers will make the effort to go through the process to get a student into special education.

Once again many people struggle to be self sufficient for a wide variety of reasons, including American capitalism is a very imperfect or flawed economic system.

John said...

We don't need miracles... We need simple change:

- Parents who are good role models and parents

- Kids who learn in school

- Kids who do NOT make babies until they are financially stable and in a serious long term relationship

- Parents who have only have the number of children they can responsibly raise.

One may not get rich following this simple formula, but they will be financially stable in most cases.

Why do Liberals fight against making this the social expectation?

Don't all children deserve this?

Laurie said...

How does one go about making your ideals the social expectation?
Would you run a govt funded ad campaign on radio, tv and print encouraging citizens to be more responsible?

If we really want kids who achieve in school we could start by funding summer school for kids who need it. At my school we are likely headed for another year of 20% or less of kids achieving grade level proficiency in math and reading. (and science)

John said...

From ~14 months ago.

Here are some ideas, I have numbered them for reference purposes only. They not in order of preference:

1. Weaken or eliminate the Public Employee Unions. Their primary purpose is to ensure the senior employees make the most money, receive the best positions and are secure in their employment. These goals are NOT aligned with cost effectively getting the most help to the people who need it. Pay for performance, not years and degrees.

2. Set hard knowledge attainment and/or poverty reduction targets that the bureaucracy managers must hit, and replace them if they don't. No more of these employment contracts where Superintendents get huge buy out clauses when they fail. Pay for performance, not degrees.

3. Make Long Acting Reversible Contraception and the Morning After Pill free and readily available for all. NO baby should be born unless the Baby Maker(s) are 100% wanting the child and feel prepared to care for it. (ie committed to being responsible capable Parents)

4.If a proven irresponsible Baby Maker who is on welfare (ie Angel Adams) gets pregnant. She should be forced to abort or give the Baby up for adoption. And if this happens more than once, her tubes should be tied.

5. The welfare payments and service should be set up to make recipients work, learn, mature and improve their self sufficiency.

6. The male Baby Makers must bear the consequences of their behavior. The female Baby Maker must name the Father so the State can ensure the required child support is paid. The cost may be higher than the money received, but the "free loading Baby Daddy" behavior must be dissuaded.

7. The State must ensure that Baby Makers and the Babies receive training, care, etc until they become a functional family. (ie Parents and Kids) This includes mandatory Parenting classes, Early Childhood Education, Inexpensive quality childcare, etc. Many of the Baby Makers are in this position because their role models were Baby Makers (ie not Parents). Someone has to train them what it means to be a Parent.

There is a start... Now you Liberals and Conservatives can argue for your adult concepts while the unlucky kids continue to suffer...

John said...

Jerry and you can pretend that this battle can be won in the K-12 schools, unfortunately that is NOT reality. This is ~70% a family / social issue.

Forcing some kids to go to school in the Summer because they are behind is not going to compensate for parent(s) who do not perform their responsibilities fully.

HCZ learned that the hard way and started their program earlier for at risk neighborhoods

John said...

So given all the factors listed here, money may help... But it will not be the solution without significant parental improvement.

John said...

Few things make me angry, however the idea that many in our population think that making and raising babies is an inalienable right is right up there.

We would not allow many of these people to babysit our infant for 4 hours... And yet many seem to be just fine letting them have and keep 2, 3 or more children of their own. Where is the logic?

Where is the concern and compassion for the children?

No wonder the achievement gap is big and generational poverty is chronic.

Laurie said...

Your views / solutions on this topic are quite radical. The Handmaid's tail (which I recently binge watched) came to mind.

Why are you so offended / angered by poor people? Lots of good parents have low paying jobs and have children who struggle in school.

When it comes to summer school I think a better term would be offering the opportunity to attend (rather than forcing) . Most of the families at my school would enroll their children.

John said...

I am not angered or offended by poor people... I am angered by Liberals and Conservatives who put the Rights of Public Employees and Baby Mamas/ Papas ahead of the well being of unlucky children.

All children should have good and responsible parents... This should be our society's number one goal if we want to truly end poverty and ensure children grow into successful independent adults.

Here is one of my new pet peeves. Liberals refer to kids who have 2 responsible Parents, that can afford their children's needs, ensure homework is done, show up at Teacher's conferences, etc as "privileged".

That should not deemed "privileged" in our society, that should be the base expectation for almost all households. Anything less than this should be deemed the unacceptable exception in most cases.

John said...

What do you define as a "good parent"?

What criteria would you use to grade a parent?

Should pretty much anyone be free to make and keep a baby in your view?

What would you do if a "not good parent" kept making babies?


Here is an update regarding the poster child for unfit mothers. What do recommend our society do?

John said...

I guess I am curious what rights should babies, toddlers, etc have with regard to who is allowed to care for and raise them?

Why are Liberals and Conservatives so often worried about parental rights? Instead of what is best for the child?

jerrye92002 said...

I was surprised to learn that about half the "poor kids" are in two-parent households (though declining somewhat). YOU may be surprised to learn that we ARE spending that trillion $ and that our "poor" are pretty well off.
from CNN

If we want to talk about solutions, there are two: Short term, Find a way to get more "poor" people working and moving towards self-sufficiency and long-term, start educating their children in ways that will let them "escape" poverty. We have had enough discussions here about identifying the problem. It's time to talk about how we implement the solutions. And penalizing the poor by taking away their children is not one of them.

jerrye92002 said...

As to the base question: Welfare waste is anything that does not help move people/families out of poverty and towards self-sufficient "contributing members of society." Now, it may take better versions of the EITC, or something, over a substantial period of time, to make that happen, but we should have everybody working at something.

John said...

As I often say... The USA has some of the richest poor in the world :-)

John said...

Here is an example of the Welfare Promotion / Propagation (WPP) problem I want to STOP. I share concerns similar to the author's.

Jerry, Now you can keep avoiding the primary root cause of unlucky kids, but what do you want to do when a questionably qualified Mother of 1 who is on the dole shows up with another kid?

And with holding benefits from the child until she names the father is not an option.. The 2nd kid needs to stay fed no matter how much of a waste the mama is.

And if money can not be collected from the father(s), the kids still need to fed and housed.

John said...

LA Times Teacher Parent Contributions

"Depending on the child, the teacher and the moment, I may have been lumped in with those "irresponsible parents" by a teacher or two as my three daughters moved through school. Maybe that's why I'm sensitive to the claim that parents are almost always to blame for a kid's boneheaded move.

Still, I understand that teachers are frustrated too. They are expected not just to teach, but to tend to the social needs of children warped by instability, poverty and family dysfunction.

There are indeed bad parents; some are selfish, absent, neglectful or cruel. But others are just overwhelmed or failed themselves at school. And compounding that is a cultural shift that has reshaped the relationship between parents and teachers."

John said...

Now I want to make people understand that I think many "working poor" should be supported as they are strongly encouraged to improve their skills, knowledge, capabilities and income.

Secondly, remember that being an unlucky kid is not directly related to poverty, race, etc.

Being an unlucky kid has everything to do with being born to an irresponsible or incapable mama /papa. Unfortunately most of these individuals are in poverty for the same reason they should not be allowed to have and care for a child. (ie immature, irresponsible, emotionally unstable, unmotivated, highly dependent, addicted, etc?

Very simply: We should not allow children to be born to and cared for by a person who can not keep a basic job or attain a High School degree / GED. Very simple question: what would you require from a person before hiring them as a nanny for your infant?

Why would you send a baby home with someone who can NOT meet those basic criteria?

jerrye92002 said...

You keep wanting to treat the exception – the single-parent that neglects or abuses the kid – and we already have laws for that. With half of the kids in two-parent households, we could cut welfare in half if we just provided these folks with the things they need – childcare, job training, etc. – to work their way off of it. Then give them real opportunity for their kids to get a decent education so that the next generation fares better. Pick the low hanging fruit first, rather than waiting for the whole tree to ripen at one time.

John said...

Jerry,
You can keep saying that... But with ~40% of children today being born into single parent homes... You are SO INCORRECT.

An interesting piece.
Bright The power of Good Parenting

"Replicating SAAF around the country may be difficult — it requires empathetic, patient teachers and families interested in participating. The program is also specifically tailored to African-American families in the uniquely poor, rural southeastern United States, and may not be adaptable in other areas."

Same problem with replicating the HCZ.

John said...

To give you some measure of how large the problems are from allowing unprepared, incompetent and irresponsible parent(s) keep and raise kids.

Child Abuse Statistics

Now I understand that many of these parent(s) are nice people. However often they simply are immature, alone, under educated, exposed to poor role models, stretched thin, in over their head, emotionally unstable, etc.

As I said, a person you would never care for your child...

Raising kids in a middle class household with 2 Parents is challenging at times. Being a single parent who has alienated her support system, or has one that is worse off than them would be TERRIBLE.

And even WORSE FOR THE BABY !!!

John said...

Jerry,
Now you would say that we have laws and social services to deal with this huge problem.

But that is about proactive as your fighting against sex ed, birth control, morning after pill, etc. Which IS NOT...

We as a society know very well which households are high risk for kids. The baby adoption agencies have that criteria nailed.

Even the pet adoption agencies have higher criteria than what you support. Any loser who gets drunk and has sex is a "good parent" if they keep the baby.

John said...

To All,
So why does it make sense to you that pretty much any human is allowed to have and keep a baby or multiple babies...

When there are strict back ground checks and criteria before one can adopt?

Are kids that are born naturally not as important?

Is it okay if they are placed in homes where the adults are struggling, not stable, etc?

And why are you surprised when so many of these kids are abused, neglected or just raised very poorly?

Which leads to them struggling in school and in life...

Sean said...

You have a very strange concept of personal liberty.

Laurie said...

Taking away children from people you consider less than ideal parents seems extremely radical to me.

jerrye92002 said...

"Any loser who gets drunk and has sex is a "good parent" if they keep the baby."

Yes, that is true. Since it is so easy to get an abortion, not having one is a sign that the parent wants what is best for the baby and will try to provide it. It might, for example, lead to the parents marrying. It seems to be your belief that 40% of the welfare population are bad parents when you have absolutely no proof other than their unmarried status. On the flipside I do not know that you have evidence to prove that the 60% of new parents living in two-parent households are good parents, either. That is why the criminal statutes on neglect and abuse are always applied to individual cases and not to a general demographic. Just as some single-parented kids do very well in school.

If you are going to suggest solutions for poverty then you had best start by recognizing that there are perhaps millions of individuals, with a million different personal obstacles or missed opportunities that need to be addressed, rather than just blaming the victims collectively as some faceless group of failures making "bad decisions."

John said...

So all 3 of you avoid the hard questions and go back to Parent's rights... It is always either that or Public employee rights...

What should a new born baby have a right to? Do you care about their rights?

Jerry,
Many states are down to one abortion clinic... Where do get these ideas? (ie abortion is easy)

As for who I think is bad... I have not said. I have said that adoption agencies know what to look for. Why should we force any child to accept less?

I have said that children have the right to a stable home and qualified, non-stressed out, mature, supported, dedicated, etc parent(s). Would you expect less for say your grand baby?

That extra support can come from a spouse, a long term partner, grand parents, etc.


Laurie,
Please note that I have written nothing about taking away the children people currently have. That would be hard on the child(ren)

3. Make Long Acting Reversible Contraception and the Morning After Pill free and readily available for all. NO baby should be born unless the Baby Maker(s) are 100% wanting the child and feel prepared to care for it. (ie committed to being responsible capable Parents)

4.If a proven irresponsible Baby Maker who is on welfare (ie Angel Adams) gets pregnant. She should be forced to abort or give the Baby up for adoption. And if this happens more than once, her tubes should be tied.

5. The welfare payments and service should be set up to make recipients work, learn, mature and improve their self sufficiency.

6. The male Baby Makers must bear the consequences of their behavior. The female Baby Maker must name the Father so the State can ensure the required child support is paid. The cost may be higher than the money received, but the "free loading Baby Daddy" behavior must be dissuaded.

7. The State must ensure that Baby Makers and the Babies receive training, care, etc until they become a functional family. (ie Parents and Kids) This includes mandatory Parenting classes, Early Childhood Education, Inexpensive quality childcare, etc. Many of the Baby Makers are in this position because their role models were Baby Makers (ie not Parents). Someone has to train them what it means to be a Parent.

jerrye92002 said...

I see. We can solve poverty by making the almighty and all-knowing State responsible for making life perfect for every baby. Balderdash.

We should expect, as fundamental to human nature, that children will be cared for as best the parents are capable. We should (and do) have laws against parents who deliberately forsake those responsibilities. And, in between, our social policy should be to HELP parents to do what they WANT to do for their kids. That means our welfare laws promote two-parent families, and they receive (voluntarily accepted) the training and assistance to care for the kids. We should work to make upward mobility opportunities available to everybody, including job training and placement, and a proper education, not in one of the "failure factories" prevalent in poor neighborhoods.

"Why should we force any child to accept less?" Why should we force any parent to accept less? Do we want to declare that black people not be allowed to be parents? That is where your "must", "must ensure", "make" and "force" prescription quickly descends. Carrots first.

John said...

"as best the parents are capable"

Unfortunately that is not adequate for a large number of children... Therefore they end end up failing school, joining gangs, making babies and/or spending a significant part of their lives in jail.

"Why should we force any child to accept less?"
I don't even know where to go with this question... Since you want the child to just accept instability, irresponsibility, emotional instability, poverty, etc as their normal.

Why should we force any parent to accept less?
Because child rights are more important than parent rights in my view.

Do we want to declare that black people not be allowed to be parents?
Any adults can have children by my criteria as long as they can provide...

"Children have the right to a stable home and qualified, non-stressed out, mature, supported, dedicated, etc parent(s)."

But you say babies only deserve to "be cared for as best the parents are capable." :-(

No wonder poverty continues generation after generation, and many of the neglected young people end up pregnant early or in jail.

jerrye92002 said...

I am certain you did not raise your children with their "rights" superior to yours. Likewise I find it hard to believe that you believe some government-written "rights of the child" law should supersede the love all parents Have for their children. There are entire nations on this planet where the overwhelming majority of parents cannot "provide" for their children up to YOUR standards. Does that make them bad parents? Should we be taking their children away or sterilizing them before they can have more/any? Why should our own poor, in this country, be treated worse? The difference here is that OUR government has assumed responsibility for alleviating the situation and, by doing so, has made matters worse. "Broke it, bought it" is little consolation when real lives are being Ruined UNNECESSARILY.

"By my criteria" And if "you" are a racist/eugenicist/social Darwinist?

John said...

Actually, I have made many sacrifices to ensure my daughters had a stable home and qualified, non-stressed out, mature, supported, dedicated, etc parent(s)."

We adults choose to have children... They did not choose us, therefore we own the obligation to them, not the other way around.

I am fine with your judgment, I understand that you don't think children deserve the very basic rights I have describe below. It is unfortunate.

"Children have the right to a stable home and qualified, non-stressed out, mature, supported, dedicated, etc parent(s)."

As for what to do about other countries... Our society / government have no say in that. However we can protect children in our society / country... If we choose to put their needs ahead of those incapable mamas/ papas and public employees.

John said...

Jerry,
Here is an interesting clip from Guess Who Is Coming to Dinner.

I assume you disagree with the roles and responsibilities described?


Sean said...

"Children have the right to a stable home and qualified, non-stressed out, mature, supported, dedicated, etc parent(s)."

Government isn't a position to assure this unless you're willing to fund and accept a much larger and more intrusive watchdog.

John said...

Sean,
Since I am interested in dealing with the highest risk group first, I am fine with that. That group being "single" women with 1 or more children already who are receiving welfare benefits. If they get pregnant again...

It seems to me they should already be under the watch of social services. Correct?

We are already paying them money. Therefore we should be able to dictate program rules. Correct?

Now how do we give the Social Services personnel some real authority with which to protect kids?


3. Make Long Acting Reversible Contraception and the Morning After Pill free and readily available for all. NO baby should be born unless the Baby Maker(s) are 100% wanting the child and feel prepared to care for it. (ie committed to being responsible capable Parents)

4.If a proven irresponsible Baby Maker who is on welfare (ie Angel Adams) gets pregnant. She should be forced to abort or give the Baby up for adoption. And if this happens more than once, her tubes should be tied.

5. The welfare payments and service should be set up to make recipients work, learn, mature and improve their self sufficiency.

6. The male Baby Makers must bear the consequences of their behavior. The female Baby Maker must name the Father so the State can ensure the required child support is paid. The cost may be higher than the money received, but the "free loading Baby Daddy" behavior must be dissuaded.

7. The State must ensure that Baby Makers and the Babies receive training, care, etc until they become a functional family. (ie Parents and Kids) This includes mandatory Parenting classes, Early Childhood Education, Inexpensive quality childcare, etc. Many of the Baby Makers are in this position because their role models were Baby Makers (ie not Parents). Someone has to train them what it means to be a Parent.

John said...

Here is what we get without such limits.

Slate Max Family Cap

Irresponsible people who have more kids than they can afford... And complaining that someone is not giving them enough money...

John said...

And Jerry may find this interesting...

PBS Welfare Cap Repeals

"The move to repeal family payment caps coincides with research that indicates the laws don’t reduce birthrates among those receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Researchers also have found that the rules are harmful to children, cause lifelong damage to their learning and development, and increase the “deep poverty rate” of children by 13 percent."

John said...

From the same source... Now here is a woman you want making and raising more babies... NOT!!!

"Vivian Thorp was a single mother of a 4-year-old daughter when she enrolled in California’s welfare-to-work program in 1999. Shortly after, Thorp met her fiance, who was also on public assistance. He struggled with mental illness. Sometimes they were homeless. Then Thorp got pregnant — and pregnant again.

Thorp was shocked to discover that she was not entitled to any more benefits for her two new daughters under California’s “maximum family grant rule,” which prevented women on welfare from receiving additional money if they had more children. Thorp found that her monthly welfare check of $520 wasn’t enough for three kids. Soon she was stealing food and diapers to get by.

I’m still traumatized,” said Thorp, 50, who went off assistance in 2011 and now works as a legal advocate for the homeless. “These laws adversely affect our ability to rise up out of poverty. It’s shameful to deprive kids of basic things like food and clothing.

John said...

One more source... How does it make sense to anyone here that the poorest households should have the most kids?

I understand why it happens... But how can that be good for the kids?

Sean said...

"Here is what we get without such limits."

It's fascinating that you take one anecdote from that story, and not all the underlying data the follows explaining how family caps don't solve the problem you want to fix.

You just want to shame poor people.

John said...

I agree that family welfare caps won't work. That is Jerry's solution...

I have one goal... "Children have the right to a stable home and qualified, non-stressed out, mature, supported, dedicated, etc parent(s)."

I am sorry to say, but responsible Parent(s) do not have a 3rd, 4th, 5th, 15th child when they can not afford to house and take care of child 1 or 2 themselves...

Do you disagree?

Laurie said...

I think you need to work on accepting things you cannot change, John, like many people being less than ideal parents.

Sean said...

"Children have the right to a stable home and qualified, non-stressed out, mature, supported, dedicated, etc parent(s)."

I'm not sure how you would define that from a legal perspective nor do I foresee how this would be enforceable.

"I am sorry to say, but responsible Parent(s) do not have a 3rd, 4th, 5th, 15th child when they can not afford to house and take care of child 1 or 2 themselves..."

Maybe it is irresponsible. But I'm not signing up for your totalitarian solutions.

John said...

That's fine... If I can't keep the irresponsible from having more kids than they can care for. I guess I go back to Jerry's goal of supporting family benefit caps.

There has to be some disincentive to slow this terrible behavior. If Mom gets less to eat... Maybe she will make sure to keep her birth control up to date...

John said...

Going back to the topic... We have clearly confirmed that in most States... Women still get more money by having more babies... And if the family caps are cancelled it will only get worse.

Definitely a big WPP...

"Welfare Promotion / Propagation (WPP): When the giving of services and benefits encourages recipients to stay dependent. And worse yet leads to their children falling into or staying in the trap. (ie welfare pays better than work?, extra money with an additional child?, etc)"

Sean said...

"And if the family caps are cancelled it will only get worse."

Nope. That's not what the data shows. Family caps have no impact on birthrates and they actually *increase* poverty. Getting rid of family caps makes the situation better.

John said...

Sean,
Better is in the eye of the beholder...

To me anything that makes life harder for these irresponsible baby mamas and papas is a good thing. Apparently the rest of the people here want to give them the freedom to have as many children as they wish...

Then I support making them personally responsible for the consequences.

When will Liberals learn that freedoms come with consequences and responsibilities. And it is wrong in so many ways to remove the consequences from the idiot's shoulders... Just to put them squarely on the shoulders of other citizens.

John said...

Maybe if it gets bad enough for the kids... More people will consider my radical solutions not so radical... :-)

Sean said...

"Better is in the eye of the beholder."

What is the evidence that your approach works better? It makes you feel good to make poor people suffer, but there's no evidence that your approach does a better job.

Since you like boiling things down to anecdotes and quotes, here's one for you:

“It’s all right to tell a man to lift himself by his own bootstraps, but it is cruel jest to say to a bootless man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps.” - Martin Luther King Jr.

John said...

Sean,
Please remember that I am willing to provide all the "boots", IUDs, etc they need... Now the question is will they pull on the "boot". After raising 3 children, I can guarantee that more children does not help one escape poverty...

3. Make Long Acting Reversible Contraception and the Morning After Pill free and readily available for all. NO baby should be born unless the Baby Maker(s) are 100% wanting the child and feel prepared to care for it. (ie committed to being responsible capable Parents)

4.If a proven irresponsible Baby Maker who is on welfare (ie Angel Adams) gets pregnant. She should be forced to abort or give the Baby up for adoption. And if this happens more than once, her tubes should be tied.

John said...

Sean,
Let's try some definition clarification...

"there's no evidence that your approach does a better job."

What do you define as "better"?

And what is the goal / job?

John said...

Just curious... Does this really make any sense to you?

"makes you feel good to make poor people suffer"

I have to wonder how many humans would actually seek this goal?

I did many things to help my girls to become independent that they did not like... However I would have never done anything because I wanted to see them suffer.

Unfortunately dependent people are not helped by just feeding their dependency. Remember the unlimited feeder and bunnies. Give it 10 generations and you have a lot of bunnies to feed. :-)

Sean said...

"What do you define as "better"?"

Already answered. You asserted that family caps would discourage people from having additional children and help them get out of poverty. The evidence shows that family caps have no effect on birthrates and actually make poor people even poorer.

"I have to wonder how many humans would actually seek this goal?"

You actively choose policies that have been shown to produce worse outcomes. When confronted with the evidence -- from the very links that you yourself posted -- you ignore it. What other conclusion is there to be drawn?

Laurie said...

I would give welfare recipients more food aid (snap) and medicaid for each kid. I am a bit mean spirited about giving people bigger and better housing for all their children. With double bunk beds 4 children can fit in one bedroom. One time (a long time ago) I read a story with a photo about a women and her kids living in their brand new subsidized town home, which was nicer than where I was living.

John said...

Sean,
Apparently they did a real poor job of explaining the consequences to the recipients... Or the recipients truly should not be allowed to have more children. Or both...

Laurie and Sean,
So it seems that you are committed to allowing irresponsible adults to have additional children, and you are committed to paying them additional money for each child from the pockets of responsible citizens...

I am thinking poverty, gangs, academic achievement gaps and high incarceration rates are going to be with us for a LONG TIME. I feel for the kids of these irresponsible adults. :-(

Laurie said...

The facts about work requirements are being ignored. Here’s why.

John said...

I found these quotes kind of interesting...

Unfortunately as we discussed above... It is likely that chronic welfare moms fall into this category. "The minority of poor adults who don’t work, even sporadically, take care of children, and/or face steep labor market barriers, including lack of affordable child care, health problems and deep skill deficits." Just who we want raising more children... NOT !!!


And this a very Liberal take on the Conservative goal..."Our dominant policy agenda implies that if you give rich people much more money they’ll work harder, but if you give poor people a little food, they’ll quit their jobs. Even in our age of elevated wealth inequality, conservatives’ agenda suggests they’re trying to solve the problem that the rich don’t have enough and the poor have too much."

John said...

Please remember... I believe that majority of people receiving financial assistance need it and I am fine with it.

It is that unmotivated bottom few million who need a kick in the butt... For the good of themselves and their children.

Sean said...

"Apparently they did a real poor job of explaining the consequences to the recipients... Or the recipients truly should not be allowed to have more children. Or both..."

The problem is that you're trying to enforce your vision of rationality on a process where not everyone is required to accept your vision. Especially when your vision is in places a big government nightmare.

jerrye92002 said...

"It is that unmotivated bottom few million who need a kick in the butt..."

so why is it that all of your suggestions are aimed at "kicking butt" of a tiny fraction of the poor, while slandering the vast majority of them as bad parents?

It is understandable that our government programs for "helping the poor" lack all compassion; it is their nature. But if the voting public has the harsh and punitive attitudes expressed here, it will be impossible for government to do any better than they are. What do you think about privatizing the welfare system?

John said...

Well, I am happy to see that I have brought the 2 Tribes together to resist common sense in the name of citizen rights... While totally ignoring how to help unlucky kids.

I will just repeat the obvious...

I agree that family welfare caps won't work. That is Jerry's solution...

I have one goal... "Children have the right to a stable home and qualified, non-stressed out, mature, supported, dedicated, etc parent(s)."

I am sorry to say, but responsible Parent(s) do not have a 3rd, 4th, 5th, 15th child when they can not afford to house and take care of child 1 or 2 themselves...


As for your specific concerns.

- If you think it is responsible for poor struggling parent(s) to have child 3, 4, 5, 15, etd, and that the children should be exposed to that person / situation... We disagree.

- If you think the vast majority of welfare parent(s) are like this, I hope you are very wrong. If there are 2 million adults like this... That may mean there are ~6 million children trapped in this disaster at any point in time... NOT GOOD...

John said...

So the hug fest was great... But now what do you guys want to do to end poverty and welfare waste / WPP?

I mean it seems Sean wants to keep writing checks from someone else's account to feed, house and care for all these dependent little mouths. With no real incentive given for Angel and crew to stop popping out kids.

I mean it seems Jerry wants to apply family caps so the family will get no more money as more mouths are born... In essence punishing the kids for the idiocy and irresponsibility of the mama / papa.

Both seem like really bad ideas to me.

jerrye92002 said...

I won't speak for Sean, but when you speak for me it is an insulting caricature--an over-simplified mis-characterization at best.

How about this for a solution? How about we start treating these people as real human beings, the overwhelming majority of whom love their kids and are doing the best they can to provide for them, but lacking the resources and opportunities to do better? if the purpose of welfare is to HELP people and move Them out of poverty then just calling them bad parents and telling them they are not allowed to have children is not helping them. You either have to turn government welfare into a personal service dedicated to turning individual lives around and escaping poverty, or you have to turn it over to charities who do exactly that by their very nature.

Sean said...

"You either have to turn government welfare into a personal service dedicated to turning individual lives around and escaping poverty"

I think this would be great, but we have to invest in it. You can't have social workers with overwhelming caseloads. I saw one story a few years back about how in Kentucky, they had a goal of 18 cases per social worker, laws indicating that social workers can't have more than 25 cases, but in reality social workers had over 50 cases because of unfilled positions and high turnover.

John said...

Not to mention... What real carrots/ sticks do social workers have at their disposal to help untrain and retrain adults who have been conditioned over a life time.

And then when many entry level jobs pay ~$8 to $12 per hour... What does success look like for the Mom with 2 kids and no husband?

Remember Bernie's goal he wanted wages so one adult could support a household...

John said...

Now as to those Private charities... Please remember that they take the simplest cases, just like the Charter and Private schools do... The people who come to them have hit bottom and know they need to change and work... They are thirsty horses.

Unfortunately the welfare system and public schools get the truly dependent adults and unlucky kids. And the reason your views sound like a "insulting caricature" is because you always deny the existence and needs of these most desperate and unlucky of children. Like if you ignore them they will disappear.

Remember that 2 million lowest of the low and their 6 million kids...

Sean said...

"Remember that 2 million lowest of the low and their 6 million kids..."

How are you arriving at these numbers?

John said...

Wild guesses mostly... Lets say 2% of the households receiving benefits averaging 3 kids per family... Do you have a better number?

John said...

I'll have to give it some more thought.

Here is an interesting source to work off

Sean said...

"Wild guesses mostly."

This is why we never get anywhere. The actual average number of children (in households with children) on SNAP is 2.1 (Source: 2015 Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Households by the USDA), which is less than average for all families. Yet, you're out here throwing out numbers you pulled out of your rear end.

John said...

From that source.

"Children: America's Families & Living Arrangements: Nutrition Assistance

Of the 73.7 million children under 18 in the United States:

10 percent live with a grandparent (7.4 million).
79 percent live with at least one sibling (58.5 million).
15 percent have a stay-at-home mother (10.8 million), and 0.6 percent have a stay-at-home father (420,000).
24 percent of children live with at least one foreign-born parent (18.1 million).

The share of children who live with one parent only has tripled since 1960, from about 9 percent to 27 percent.

Given the above... And the terrible academic achievement gaps... I am sticking with the ~6 million number.

John said...

And remember... Never use averages for something like this... I am certain most of the smart responsible poor people limit themselves to one child.

It is that truly irresponsible small group that drives up the average.

John said...

Sean,
Just wondering if you think so many kids are being raised so responsibly by capable adults... Or so few are being raised terribly... Why do you think so many kids are failing so miserably?

Are you with Jerry in thinking that the Public schools are terrible?

Sean said...

"Just wondering if you think so many kids are being raised so responsibly by capable adults... Or so few are being raised terribly... Why do you think so many kids are failing so miserably?"

When you're interested in engaging with my actual argument, let me know. See ya around.

John said...

Which argument? It seemed you were busy picking at my numbers...

I am not sure what you want to deny that 2,000,000 parents are poor at best... I mean that is a really small percentage of active parents. And unfortunately it is this group and their kids who are most challenged.

The last productive thing you said was this...

"I think this would be great, but we have to invest in it. You can't have social workers with overwhelming caseloads. I saw one story a few years back about how in Kentucky, they had a goal of 18 cases per social worker, laws indicating that social workers can't have more than 25 cases, but in reality social workers had over 50 cases because of unfilled positions and high turnover."

And I even agreed with you...

Sean said...

"I am not sure what you want to deny that 2,000,000 parents are poor at best."

Am I denying it?

Here's the thing: the fundamental problem we have getting to an understanding is your reliance on numbers that you make up. Whether it's your completely-made-up 33% of GDP threshold or the pulled-out-of-the-air-how-many-unvirtuous-poor-people-there-are number, you just say stuff that sounds good, make up a counter-argument on my behalf and then expect me to answer to it. I've asked you not to do it on literally now dozens of occasions.

Heck, even Jerry points out that "when you speak for me it is an insulting caricature". Yet, you keep doing it. I've got better stuff to do with my time.

jerrye92002 said...

"you always deny the existence and needs of these most desperate and unlucky of children. "

And you deny both the humanity and existence of the far more numerous cases that do NOT fall into the "most desperate and unlucky" category. I have said many times before that I believe even the best welfare reform program would, after 3-5 years, still leave us with about 20% either unemployable or actually resistant to employment. Some of those would require some "sticks" and others might just require more time and patience. It took us 50 years to create this permanent underclass; it shouldn't surprise anybody if it takes a while to overcome that collected misery.

Let me see if I can briefly describe what I have in mind. First, we would have to replace the current laws, or probably just create a new program which would gradually supplant the current system. We would pay extra for the social workers committed to this "personal service" approach, and accept as clients all new applicants for welfare (that is catch them before they fall) plus new applicants from among existing welfare recipients – those most willing. The social workers (I might suggest some of them could come from the ranks of recipients, with training) would have access to the full range of benefits (public and private)to support each client, with the charge to slowly wean that client as they passed self-sufficiency. one disadvantage to the current system is that if a social worker is successful, they lose their job. New social workers in this system, by starting small, could have a long future before running out of clients.

Big advantage? Changing the culture to one of compassion and lifting people up rather than putting them down.

jerrye92002 said...

TGIT-- Thank Goodness it's Trump.
common sense anti-poverty

John said...

Sean, You will be missed.

Jerry, Good link!!! We are still going to have a problem when the jobs only pay $12 per hour and their is a single Mom with 3 kids in the house. Thoughts?

Remember that 40% of kids in the USA are born into a single parent household. And apparently there are big problems with Funds Recovery

jerrye92002 said...

Well, I could be trite and say that the first step is for government to "stop doing stupid stuff," like funds recovery. It's backwards. If the money was paid directly to mama, there would be an incentive to keep the family together, As it should be. And welfare payments should be structured to keep the parents together rather than paying them to split up.

The problem is real and unfortunately there is no panacea. Just because government has some 80 different confusing, overlapping and often wasteful means-tested Programs does not mean it is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Until our welfare "entitlement" System and the mentality it breeds is changed, We are going to "continue to get what we always got." I am concerned that the incentives for everybody involved in the current system is to KEEP people on welfare, to keep the gravy train rolling, regardless of the harm to the economy and human dignity.

You raise a specific problem – single mom, three kids, $12 per hour job (if she's lucky) – and it hints at the actual solution, which is that welfare should be individualized and aimed at helping individual people out of poverty and into self-sufficiency. It took us 50 years to get into this problem, and it may take us 50 years to get out, but recognizing recipients as real human beings with unique challenges, and offering them an individual combination of assistance must be the first step. I know it works; I have seen it done, by private charity, too many times to believe otherwise.

Specifics:
-- single welfare moms should be helped to get together to form childcare co-ops. Three moms could work and pay the fourth to look after the kids. If a government subsidy was needed, so be it.
-- To keep people working, something like a progressive negative income tax, or EITC, That offered monetary incentives to work and earn more, Would be far simpler, cheaper and more effective than the current entitlement. That is, it would be progressive in that if you earned nothing, the government payment would leave you well short of poverty level, but if you made substantial money, the government payment would put you well over the poverty level. Incentive.
-- We ought to be handing out school vouchers at least to those parents Facing "failing schools" So that parents recognize the value of the education, and can find a school better suited to helping their kids escape poverty. If we were to have HCZ Clones pop up all over the place, that wouldn't be a bad thing
-- We should insist that every welfare recipient have an "aide" looking after them, finding them opportunities for education on matters of simple living, seeking employment, etc. that aide would have to sign off on "adequate progress" to keep the financial aid flowing. Tough love, but it really is what private charities do all the time. I would think that some welfare recipients could be trained to do this work. They might be good at it, and they would very quickly have a job.

That's a short list. I think a longer one is pointless until the current "entitlement" Mentality has ended, From both sides.

John said...

Maybe I will copy this forward and pick at it later... Thanks for the thoughts.