So one of my FB friends linked to this sweet piece.
Which seems somewhat aligned to Moose's comment regarding healthcare over here. "How about we look out for the needs of our neighbors, as Christians in a ‘Christian Country’ must do?"
To which I responded... "Moose, Unfortunately your vision of Christian is usually a bit too: Promoting Dependency for Me... How do you want to hold people responsible for making good life choices, living healthy, paying their way, avoiding being on the dole, etc?"
Now please remember I am a big fan of charitable giving to:
Which seems somewhat aligned to Moose's comment regarding healthcare over here. "How about we look out for the needs of our neighbors, as Christians in a ‘Christian Country’ must do?"
To which I responded... "Moose, Unfortunately your vision of Christian is usually a bit too: Promoting Dependency for Me... How do you want to hold people responsible for making good life choices, living healthy, paying their way, avoiding being on the dole, etc?"
Now please remember I am a big fan of charitable giving to:
- help people improve and escape poverty
- help people during disasters
- help people who are ill
- care for the truly disabled
However I am not a big fan of charitable giving to:
- enable people to stay dysfunctional
- enable people to have more children than they can care for
- manipulators and con artists
So I usual give significant amounts to organizations who help those in need, and avoid giving blindly to those standing on the street. So what does that say about my character?
And for those who do give to street beggars... What does that say about their character?
158 comments:
Honestly, it doesn't say much of anything, because character is so much larger than just one decision a person makes. But do carry on with your moralizing.
"moralize
1 : to explain or interpret morally
2a : to give a moral quality or direction to
b : to improve the morals of"
Personally I think the original FB post was about moralizing.
I am more curious how people see the whole topic?
Is the charitable giver who gives $50 dollars to an addict doing a good or bad thing?
Are they helping a person in need or are they financially supporting a very violent and destructive drug trade?
Are they literally paying gang members to help them stay in business?
Character:
one of the attributes or features that make up and distinguish an individual
the complex of mental and ethical traits marking and often individualizing a person, group, or nation
moral excellence and firmness
I always remember what MY Dad said about such transactions. A Skid Row type once (at least, Dad worked in the neighborhood) approached him and wanted 25 cents for a meal. "Restaurant right there," said Dad, "come with me and I'll buy you all you can eat." Character can be tested.
That’s very noble, jerry, but unless you’re going to force individuals to do charitable things to alleviate the suffering of others and eliminate poverty and hunger, the problem will always exist and there will never be enough individuals to help them. That is why people have used their collective power, to do things that individuals cannot.
Moose
Whoa up! Collective Power??? Do you hear yourself? You may as well have said "resistance is futile." Charity can ONLY be done by individuals, individually or in voluntary groups. Forced charity is not charity and cannot be. Yes, "the poor we will have always." But our moral (Christian, if you will) responsibility cannot be discharged by demanding that government tax others and redistribute it on objects of our compassion. That's theft on the one end and enabling, at best, on the other.
Moose,
That is a very sad and cynical view...
The question I have is do we have so many “needy” people because our society has enabled them for so long?
I mean if one gets more free stuff, the more they screw up... what choices does that lead to for some people?
I'll let Moose answer that one before giving out facts.
Jerry,
I have no problem with “forced giving”.
But I do agree that bad programs can do more damage than good.
"I mean if one gets more free stuff, the more they screw up"
There's actually precious little evidence of that in the context of our current 'welfare' programs, but carry on with your fact-free generalizing.
I am pretty sure we have come to agreement that money comes with every kid comes with funding to care for it...
The data has been posted here many times. For the vast majority of recipients, the programs work as expected, as a short-term safety net. Families on such programs tend to be the same size or smaller than those not on such programs. Are there exceptions? Yes. But they are not the rule.
But that doesn't fit your frame, so you ignore it. Every. Single. Time. Which is why your blog is nothing more that chasing your same tired talking points around and around in the same old tired circle.
“That is a very sad and cynical view...”
It’s neither. It’s real and historical.
Moose
Yes Jerry, collective power. The very same collective power that allows you to have a road on which to drive to get to work, etc etc ad nauseum.
Moose
This is an interesting opinion piece
When Women have Babies
Child Assistance Funding Change
These type of quotes always floor me.
"Child protective services investigates alleged abuse or neglect in as many as 37 percent of all children under 18 in the United States, according to a 2017 report in the American Journal of Public Health. African-American children are almost twice as likely as white children to have their well-being investigated by child protective services. (The report only looked at reports of child abuse and neglect, not placement in foster care.)
A March report by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found the foster care population increased by more than 10 percent between 2012 and 2016, the last year for which data is available. The agency linked the increase in child welfare caseloads to the nation’s opioid epidemic, which is ravaging families.
In six states — Alaska, Georgia, Minnesota, Indiana, Montana and New Hampshire — the foster care population increased by more than half."
And the liberals want to end family size welfare caps, and both sides fight mandating parental base knowledge, capabilities, performance, etc.
However back to the crux of the piece...
"whether HE is lying or not says something about HIS character, but hearing someone in need and choosing not to HELP when I have the means to says something about MINE"
Now the original FB poster says that I am over thinking it. And I understand that it is just a sweet meaningless piece for most people that barely noticed on his timeline.
However I think it is what Sean referred to earlier as moralizing, and unfortunately many liberal messages say something similar.
The moral apparently being that people who give blindly to those who ask have a good character... Or something like that... Where as I don't think it is quite that simple.
I mean will our streets and communities be better off if everyone give $50 to every beggar who asks?
Will the beggar be better off if they receive cash? Or services / housing?
About 2 years ago beggars started showing up at the corners near 494 and Rockford road. I have no idea where they come from or how they get there. However it seems to almost be an orchestrated event and I often wonder who hands out enough money to make the exercise worth while? And I wonder how sincere the folks are with their signs?
Well I fund charities and a lot of social services, so I will not be handing them any cash anytime soon. I think they should contact some of the many care giving options we have in the state.
John, you’re giving your money to a collective? Imagine that! Does it work? jerry thinks you’re now part of the Borg.
Moose
Moose, you are failing to distinguish between money given by individuals, voluntarily, to other individual human beings (whether foolish or not in your opinion), and the forced extraction of an individual's money by the almighty [collective] State, for some other (ostensibly charitable but we know that's not true) purpose. Seems to me a very large and essential difference.
Moose,
Yes I am fine with our society collecting money from the people and using it for many purposes, including health and human services.
The question I keep asking you is how do we get people to use that investment in them to escape poverty instead of just wallowing in it?
Thanfully government allows for citizens to argue about this and influence how the collective money is spent.
My main point is that just giving people money for nothing apparently just promotes dependency.
Jerry,
The desperate and needy don’t care where the food comes from.
Your concern is for yourself unfortunately, not them.
You want to be able to pick winners and losers. It is a control issue.
No, jerry. There is no difference. Lincoln was right: government of the people, by the people, for the people.
Moose
"Your concern is for yourself unfortunately, not them."
Thanks but no thanks for the insult. You should know better by now. MY concern is that welfare money is mostly wasted, creating and sustaining dependency rather than supporting and encouraging effort and self-sufficiency. Until we start measuring result by the economic and social benefits to actual recipients, individually and in aggregate, rather than our imagined gains from compassion-by-proxy, we're going to continue to allow people to suffer in "poverty" while the high-minded talkers (liberals) point fingers at those actually trying to help.
I guess I disagree...
I don't see Liberals seeking the end of charitable giving. Where as you most certainly would like to see the end of "forced societal collection and re-distribution".
I agree with Moose, Sean and the other Liberals that the majority of "forced societal collection and re-distribution" does good over all.
I want to make continual improvements to the system, not end them like yourself.
Primarily I am interested in stopping stupid, emotional stunted, immature, incapable, abusive and/or neglectful people from making and screwing up little babies.
Unfortunately many folks in the USA seem to think it one's right to have and screw up babies...
You do not want to blame the social welfare "system," which is supposed to cure all of these ills, for NOT curing them, and then want to go further and say they are "doing good"? I guess if you are a good liberal then double-think isn't that difficult.
I don't think I ever said that I want to end the "system." I want it completely reformed. I want to end the madness that says if you just hand people a check and don't tell them how to use it to better their lives, you're just enabling them to continue in dependency.
As long as folks allow irresponsible / incapable people to have and raise kids in their image...
There will be no eliminating irresponsible / incapable people from our society.
That is a flaw that both Liberals and Conservatives seem to whole heartedly support.
Drivers license and insurance required to drive on our roads...
But pretty much anyone can raise a baby as they wish.
OK, let's use your analogy. Some young skull-full-of-mush isn't doing well in his nearby public school (it's all his fault, of course) and missed the driver's ed class. He decides he doesn't need a license, but he "borrows" a car, heads down the road recklessly and mashes up the car, himself and his girlfriend. Obviously what we need to do is to pay for his medical care, give her an apartment, buy him a new car, and give them each $500/month for life. I disagree.
The other solution, quite obviously, is to summarily execute anybody driving without a license, or having children without one. That would "eliminate irresponsible/incapable people from our society." I suspect liberals and conservatives alike whole-heartedly oppose that solution.
It is almost impossible to believe that you have been reading my views for 10 years and you would still say this...
"it's all his fault, of course"
Please remember:
- Parental responsibility 70%
- School and Society 30%
Young adult responsibility: Minimal
OK, it's all his parents fault. Now, are you going to help this poor schlub overcome his upbringing, subsidize him in his economic dependence and social dysfunction forever, or just let him rot, taking another generation with him?
Now I know that you have not been listening to Sean, Moose or Laurie...
The reality is that welfare almost all goes to the young, old and people who are working.
So the idea that a young man will get long term benefits is incorrect.
Please remember that I do support training programs, parenting programs, free quality birth control, etc that could help this young man turn his life around and ensure that his children were better off. It is you who would cut the funding for such programs.
More Welfare Stats
Please remember that my goals are to proactively help these kids, not try to work miracles after the parent(s) have screwed them up...
This an interesting piece that to me shows both sides of the problem.
Though the final stated "solution" below is definitely the Liberal "just give them more money" solution... Nothing about stopping that woman from having 4 kids she can not care for... (ie first paragraph)
"Morrell was unequivocal about solutions: more resources for underserved parents. “I became a product of my environment,” said Gerald, who ended up in jail (foster-care youth are more likely than their peers to end up incarcerated). “They need to teach the family how to get help,” he said choking back tears, “They’re under-resourced parents.”
“They need to teach the family how to get help,”
So apparently the "system" does not work well for large numbers of people.
"Though the final stated 'solution' below is definitely the Liberal 'just give them more money' solution"
So, all the money we are now spending is not being spent helping people, but if we just spend some more....
Which side of the topic question are you going to come down on?
The usual… The system needs to work more effectively and broke mammas should not be having 4 babies...
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...
And the usual quibbles:
"targets that the bureaucracy managers must hit,[or else]"
"NO baby should be born ..."
"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."
"make recipients work, learn,..."
"must bear the consequences..."
"mandatory Parenting classes,..."
Do you see the tremendous amount of intrusion and coercion written into these suggestions, just to avoid actually HELPING these real human beings? You're treating them like a puppy that's piddled on the rug.
Screwing up babies, toddlers and pre-schoolers and young adults seems much more agregious than piddling on a rug.
I am offering them birth control, training, and other support.
What exactly are you offering them by cutting the programs they rely on to eat, live, etc?
Well I guess you are offering them the freedom to make and keep more babies than they are able to feed, care for, etc without handouts.
"I am offering them birth control, training, and other support.
What exactly are you offering them by cutting the programs they rely on to eat, live, etc?"
You've only made two mistakes here. First is saying you are offering support. You are not offering anything; you are expecting government to do it (that is, unless you operate a major charity of which I am unaware). What you are offering, in your own words, is total government control of everybody's personal lives, in exchange for being kept like pets.
Second is suggesting that I want to harm these folks rather than helping them. Assuming there is no waste and fraud in these programs (which I seriously doubt) with which to finance the necessary reforms, I would favor increasing spending on the theory there would be a Return on Investment, unlike the current dependency trap "we" are financing.
You must be kidding... "total government control of everybody's personal lives"
Do you really think that "everyone" is using the child welfare system and having more kids?
If so, please reference the welfare data links I provided. The rules I propose would impact only the most irresponsible of parent(s).
You want to reduce the total cost of government far below my goal of 33% of GDP... Sorry but I do not see you advocating for any new or improved programs... Just cuts to reduce your tax bill and wishful thinking...
My memory is better than yours. I proposed converting the welfare system to a single program, like an EITC or negative income tax, requiring only certification from a welfare worker that the family was making "adequate progress" towards self-sufficiency, and that they were providing whatever training or assistance would aid in that endeavor. This was to be coupled with education vouchers to break the cycle, and other innovations like teaching welfare moms to do childcare for other welfare moms, or to be social workers themselves. If this costs more initially (and isn't paid for by just elimination of waste, fraud and abuse rampant in the current system) then so be it; costs will naturally decrease in the longer term. In short, let's try HELPING and offering opportunities, rather than punishing. Even if your draconian methods only apply to a few, they are still draconian.
And what is wrong with making government only as large and costly as necessary to fulfill its essential functions? You know, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"? Essential wisdom there.
Please expand:
What is "adequate progress towards self sufficiency" and what happens if a financially struggling mom gets pregnant again?
How do you plan to protect the children from the poor decisions of the adults in their lives?
How do you plan to train welfare recipients to be childcare providers or social workers?
Who is going to pay them if they do? Who is going to pay for the childcare facility?
How will you prevent fraud and ensure effectiveness?
Most of your questions are irrelevant, and the solutions are all part of the new personal service provided by a new horde of social workers paid to help. No more of this "apply once, get a check forever" type of warehousing of the poor. You are asking for global, one-size-fits-all answers to problems that should be solved by individuals one-on-one. We assume welfare workers and child care workers are trained today, so we don't have to invent that wheel; simply offer the opportunity to qualified and well-suited applicants. Child abuse is taken care of today (except that created by the public schools). Fraud is essentially eliminated in this system through the tax code and regular monitoring by the social worker.
You've said yourself that "baby mamas" are a small part of the problem, so let's not focus our solution on it. Let's help the many we can, and later deal with the few who simply will not accept responsibility (to gain assistance) for themselves and their kids. Those who fail to make adequate progress (a subjective call) lose their benefits and must reapply.
Have you read none of my links and totally ignored Sean for years?
"apply once, get a check forever"
It is pointless trying to resolve or discuss this with you.
You have no plans or answers... Just avoidance...
And by the way, I think baby mamas and baby dadas are a small part of the population and a BIG part of the problem. Young children need good capable parents. (preferably 2 of them)
So which do you think more effectively alters behavior, help in following the right behavior, or punishment for not knowing or being able to do right, after the fact?
I read your links and am usually disappointed. Most of them simply point out the problem, from various standpoints, never coming up with a comprehensive solution or even suggesting there could be one. Sean makes some good points, and I believe he might actually agree more with my "positive reinforcement" and support approach.
And really, "NO PLAN"? What did I just post?
Yes the links do define our current reality.
- Who is on welfare? (mostly kids & elderly, sometimes working are people for limited amount of time)
- Which programs use the most money? (ie healthcare, food, family assistance, elder care)
So if you have a plan... Let's try again then...
What is "adequate progress towards self sufficiency" and what happens if a financially struggling mom gets pregnant again?
How do you plan to protect the children from the poor decisions of the adults in their lives?
How do you plan to train welfare recipients to be childcare providers or social workers?
Who is going to pay them if they do? Who is going to pay for the childcare facility?
How will you prevent fraud and ensure "public employee" and recipient effectiveness?
I have a plan, but you will never understand it, because you don't want to. You prefer sticks to carrots.
I will not determine what is adequate progress. Since every person will start from a different set of circumstances and have a different capacity for "success," it will be determined between the recipient and their partner in the endeavor, the assigned social worker. It will also be measured by how much additional income they report every year on their taxes, though no specific amount/percent/whatever will necessarily be required. That is left to the individuals' judgment.
If a mom in this system becomes pregnant, it will be for good reason, such as being married and wanting another child. Frequent visits to the house to see if there is "a man in the house" (who becomes immediately responsible for mom and kids), something abandoned in favor of the "Great Society," and teaching/talking birth control, self-respect, the value of marriage, etc. Again, making the "right way" the easier way.
The children will be individually protected because parents will make good decisions for their kids WITHIN the range of opportunities available to them. Since the social worker's job will be to ask "How are we going to make things better for little Jimmy, here," the range of opportunities will increase and "poor decisions" will simply not get made.
We will train welfare workers and childcare providers the same way we do now. You talk as if all of these people are complete idiots incapable of tying their own shoes. Many of them are highly capable of these simple "people skills," lacking only the chance and a little training.
Who is going to pay them? They already get "EITC" money. They get more when they take a job as a social worker, or they collect child care money from other recipients, who claim the child care "deduction" on their taxes. You never heard of home childcare? or having churches operate daycare or pre-K facilities? This insistence that everything must be done by government or it doesn't get done is what is causing these problems in the first place.
How will I prevent fraud? Really? There is no fraud in the current system? It is much harder to do fraud when you have a social worker coming by every few days to help you, when their job depends on you being helped and you are being helped by their coming by, and when you file a tax return at the end of the year both of you have to sign off on, with severe penalties and a possible "audit" hanging over you.
Once again I find you defending either a system that we all know is failing to reach its stated goals, or a substitute which contradicts what we know of human nature.
1. So you do not trust social workers currently and yet you will trust them with the new system? What changed?
2. What if she gets pregnant while not married? How exactly are you going to make the father(s) pay? How will this be different from today? How will the kids eat if collection fails?
3. What "new opportunities" do you envision? What if "bad decisions" are still made? Please remember that most neglect, physical abuse and sexual abuse is committed by a family member...
4. You are talking about training people who could not make it through High School to be Child care / Psychology experts. Really? Who will be taking care of their children while they are being trained? Also, please note that inner city child care pays very little after expenses. And again where will this childcare take place.
Or do you really think "that just anyone can be a childcare provider / social worker?
5. I am very involved in the financial aspects of child care operations... Basic care givers make just over minimum wage. And your plan is to let the keep all of their tax credits as their earned income goes up?
6. Coming by everyday? Really IRS audits... Really?
Just curious...
"poor decisions" will simply not get made"
Why do you think that a reasonable rational responsible single mother with 2 children who is on welfare barely getting by and near homeless would get pregnant again today?
Please remember that she will not receive enough funding to cover the additional costs...
My belief is that only a irresponsible Mother would have more kids than she can afford.
I am still floored by your willingness to give a social worker the power to judge a "parent(s)" and to give them control over that parent(s)' tax credit.
You just about flip at my idea that Teacher's grade parent(s) involvement and effort...
And now you want to give a civil servant a blank checkbook and a lot of power over the lives of citizens.
And you did not answer my question as usual... What happens when someone gets pregnant, gets addicted, gets fired, or in some other way fails to perform?
Do you keep paying them in hopes that they will improve?
Maybe the answer to all of these is "it's not your decision." Nor does it belong to some bureaucrat at the state or federal level. I am proposing a simple mechanism where government "welfare"--impersonal, ineffective, uncaring, wasteful-- gets converted to something much like private charity, where there are expectations and caring and a personal connection. There is much more opportunity for the "help" (the government check) to be well-used if the assistance is there, and much more accountability if the assistance is refused. This initially will require an army of new social workers and probably need to be phased in because of that, but it is the best answer for working with real human beings.
What would be your solution for every woman who gets pregnant while on welfare? Do you think that perhaps circumstances might vary? is every case exactly alike? It is why (at least at one time) we called them "case workers." They dealt with people on a case-by-case basis.
And they aren't "judging." They're helping. Big difference.
Please remember that cold hearted analysts and problem solvers like me do not become teachers or social workers. The people who enter these fields are empathetic caring people who strive to help others. Often because they come from a similar screwed up situation.
I think you do them a great disservice when you refer to them as "impersonal, ineffective, uncaring, wasteful".
The unfortunate reality is that there simply are screwed up, low motivation, low common sense, low self control, low capability, etc people in the world. I am guessing that is why it was written that "the poor will always be with us".
I mean again... Why would a welfare Mom with 2 kids who is barely scraping by get pregnant again? Other than...
- she is an addict and out of control
- she is emotionally needy and needs babies to feel fulfilled
- she thinks it will bond a man to her
- she is so irresponsible that she does not use birth control effectively
- other
None of which are good responsible reasons for bringing a baby into this world.
Those who work in private charities are saints, in my opinion. Those in the welfare system, and I know some, are also decent and caring people, but as I always say, good people in a bad system produces bad results.
The unfortunate reality is that we are not doing anything to help the people we CAN help if we cared enough to actually help, rather than rounding them up into forced labor camps. Nor are we doing enough to weed out (until they come to their senses) those who refuse to help themselves given the opportunity.
Why would...? Because she does not see an alternative, and because no one comes around, offers and encourages and helps her in finding those alternatives. Just that simple. One of the ironies of the Great Society is the change that welfare workers did not drop in to see if there was a "man in the house" who would be responsible. When those visits were curtailed, women started having additional children while on welfare, but that was NOT taken as proof of a "man in the house"!! Think that would make a difference?
She has training options, childcare subsidies, etc. And what exactly do you think these caring social workers do all day?
But please remember this this young woman likely came from a dysfunctional family and has a limited education. The reality is that her perspective and capability to make good choices is very different from a normal educated young woman.
Okay... Again...
A woman with 2 kids on welfare gets pregnant by a man who does not live with her... Likely a man who is as financially strapped as her. Or often it seems the idiot gets incarcerated soon after.
What do you propose we do? Withhold the baby's child welfare benefits from the mother until the momma / pappa pay up?
Other?
Dead Beat Parents
Here is an interesting video
Here is an Interesting Effort
More on that
But they use a pretty HUGE STICK...
"The problem is urgent. Nearly half of single-parent families
who receive no child support are on one or more welfare
programs, including Medicaid, food stamps, cash welfare,
public housing, and other programs. Worse yet, most of
these single parents will remain trapped in dependency
for years to come: fewer than one in ten will leave the
program within a year, while more than 60 percent will
languish in dependency for more than eight years.
But the solution is simple: single parents on food stamps
and other welfare programs should be required to
cooperate with child support enforcement efforts as a
condition of eligibility. Under this reform, custodial parents
would be prohibited from obstructing efforts to determine
paternity and collecting child support payments. Likewise,
noncustodial parents would be required to make payments
or otherwise cooperate.
The reform provides good cause exemptions when such
cooperation isn’t in the best interest of the child—such as
when there is a risk of domestic violence—and children
enrolled in the program will never be sanctioned for their
parents’ decisions. But parents who refuse to meet their
obligations or otherwise interfere with states’ attempts to
collect child support would be removed from the program
until they cooperate.
The interesting thing is that they do not discuss the costs of such a program?
I mean collecting $ 1.8 million more per year sounds good unless it costs $3 million to get it...
"This reform has a proven track record of success. States
have long required child support cooperation for cash
assistance programs and several states have expanded
these requirements to single parents on food stamps.
When Kansas expanded its successful enforcement
policies to the food stamp program in 2015, it set in place
a system to track collections for families affected by the
reform.11 Within just six months, child support collections
increased by nearly 40 percent among those impacted.
Since the change, poor families in Kansas have gained an
estimated $1.8 million more in child support each year.
More support has translated into less need for government
assistance, allowing many to move out of poverty and end
their dependence on welfare programs entirely."
I am all for this and yet I wonder what happens to the kids while a mother with questionable priorities and mental capabilities refuses to work with the authorities.
"She has training options, childcare subsidies, etc."
Riiiight. Just like she has ALL of these options for where to send her kids to school. And according to you, she is too dumb and irresponsible to be allowed to choose anyway. An assessment, by the way, that you have made of millions of people you have no way of knowing.
"And what exactly do you think these caring social workers do all day?" I KNOW what they do. It isn't out visiting with each of these people and helping them improve their lives in ways that are personally tailored to their unique situation, while leaving all of the indirect overhead and bookkeeping to (basically) the tax system.
I would accuse you of defending the status quo, except that you have our own ideas on a new system based on punishing, after the fact, people who have fallen into poverty. Sort of like a doctor who treats your broken leg by breaking your arm.
the baby daddy problem is perhaps quickly remedied (or at least over time), if there are fewer willing baby mamas because they are moving to self-sufficiency. Also, if there is no penalty for the father living with his children or marrying Mom, since they could file a joint tax return and benefit economically from that choice. In the meantime, sure, "name the father" is a good stopgap, even if it collects less than it costs; it is a good "deterrent" and sets some expectations.
Now what is the likelihood that there are a million screwed up dependent Mammas out there...
Child Abuse Statistics
Foster Care Stats
Substance Abuse Disorder
Now you can keep pretending that all parent(s) are capable and responsible, but the statistics prove otherwise.
So... Are you willing to club baby if mama refuses to cooperate by telling who daddy is?
Or if she just does not know because she was high or drunk?
Welfare to Work Discussion
The Services Jerry thinks do not exist to help people
"I am all for this and yet I wonder what happens to the kids while a mother with questionable priorities and mental capabilities refuses to work with the authorities." Sounds like something that should be considered on a case-by-case basis by a thoughtful and caring social worker. Explain to mama that if her man helps, they can benefit economically and not be penalized, or if he refuses, he can be forced to offer support, or she can forget him and figure out how she is going to do for her kids. THOSE are choices she can be helped to make. Or she can forsake all the help and go her own way, but CPS "will be watching." A gradual transition may be required to avoid overloading the foster care system, but I don't think so. The number of these Angel Adams types has simply got to be tiny or it wouldn't be such news, and the ones who could do fine without the aid don't count.
Ah... You do support big sticks...
I am quite sure that Angel is unique, but the reality is that women with children on welfare have more kids on average than women in marriages and not on welfare... Isn't that twisted...
Here is a source if you doubt my statement.
By the way you are doing it again...
"considered on a case-by-case basis by a thoughtful and caring social worker"
Giving the social worker power over the mother's choices and child's benefits.
Next you will be letting Teachers call out dead beat parent(s)... :-)
This is a amusing and disturbing post / comments.
This is even better.
Cal Matters
"Giving the social worker power" as a last resort, for those who refuse to cooperate in their own betterment. Vastly different from some distant bureaucrat making a blanket ruling (like your CA example).
As for you plan, "social science research suggests that such family caps do little to discourage families receiving welfare from having additional children."
what the reading says is that better economic status = fewer kids. So, if we help these folks get a job and move up the economic ladder, problem solved.
To the topic, it is a matter of WHAT we are enabling.
You are absolutely correct... That is what I and the angry pharmacist keep saying...
Angry doesn't help. The few welfare reform efforts you document, where small pockets of people are tested between a pretty charity-like personal service and a rigid "get a job" approach tend to prove my point but do not, I think, go far enough. It appears job training and family education has limited effect on kids' academic performance. It also appears that these government programs leave most recipients in poverty after five years, so if government benefits are cut off as earned income increases, there is little incentive. The proposed "negative income tax" must be steeply "progressive" so that higher work income results in substantially higher total income. It also appears that much of welfare goes to those who are able to hold down a job given a bit of help getting and keeping one, especially if we can get child care and such squared away, something that only individual attention and support can sort through in cooperation. In short, we need to treat these people as human beings in need of assistance, helping them to help themselves, rather than as bad pets that piddle on the rug.
I still like your comparing a broke low educated single Mom with 3 or 4 kids to a dog piddling...
I think those kids are much more important than you do apparently.
Where as you strive to protect her right to get pregnant again...
Please remember that my ideas impact no happily married couples with 2 or 3 kids... Just those who keep having kids when it will be harmful to the kids.
You are the one making that comparison, not I. You are the one suggesting that these women be spayed or neutered, just like a dog. My ideas require these folks to be treated like human beings, who can be helped to get from where they are to where they want to be. I see a vast difference between two conversations; between "I'm sorry, but you must have an abortion," and "how about Jimmy's daddy, can he help?"
Actually yes you did a couple of times... "rather than as bad pets that piddle on the rug"
These children being raised into generational poverty by adults who can barely care for themselves are not "dog piddle" from my perspective. However your perspective seems to be different.
These are disturbed or incapable adults who should not be having more kids if they can not afford the ones they have. Also, my proposal offers free Long Acting Reversible Contraception and the option of giving the child up for adoption.
An interesting and disturbing piece
This is an excellent history summary.
Things are still bad for unlucky kids... But they used to be much worse...
A Father's Impact
I said,"You are the one suggesting that these women be spayed..." and you missed the "rather than" to contrast with your proposals.
I am simply asking that the broad range of poor people and their wide-ranging set of reasons for being poor cannot be successfully helped, in any one-size-fits-all way, from that condition by blaming them for it, and then punishing them for not getting out of it. Start by treating them as real human beings, finding out what they need and then helping them to get it. Check your proposals against that standard.
The great liberal conceit is that these poor folks cannot succeed by themselves, and that they need liberals to care for them, by handing them somebody else's money. And having demonstrated their great compassion by saying so, they believe that the problem is automatically solved. Heaven forbid they should open their own pocketbook or actually try to work individually with these folks. Problem solved, why should they?
"but the reality is that women with children on welfare have more kids on average"
Um, source? Because I'm not aware of such data. Everything I've seen indicate that family sizes and birth rates of families on welfare are comparable to those not on welfare.
Sean,
I think this one explains it pretty well.
"More than half (55%) of mothers who lack a high school diploma have three children or more – 29% have exactly three children, and 26% have four or more.
The likelihood of having such large families declines markedly at higher levels of education.
Among mothers with a high school diploma or some college experience, 24% have three children and another 14% have four or more children,
while about one-third (32%) of mothers with a bachelor’s degree have three or more children.
Meanwhile, mothers with advanced degrees are half as likely as those lacking a high school diploma to have three or more children – just 27% do. Some 19% have three children, and 8% have four or more."
Can you even imagine that 25% of low educated / low income women have four or more kids?
And we wonder why there is an education and wealth gap...
That's a measurement by education level, not by welfare status.
Do you really believe they are not highly related?
Or do you just want make me do more research?
As I said back in April:
"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."
I can post actual numbers over and over and over and over again, but you won't process it because you're too committed to your own invented sense of inflated morality.
Sean,
Please remember that averages are a very bad way to compare data like this. That is why I think the PEW data was more telling. And are you now saying that PEW is a questionable source?
Here is that 2015 Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Households by the USDA
I'll look it over when I get some time.
"Please remember that averages are a very bad way to compare data like this."
Your PEW data is averaged, so I don't get your point.
"And are you now saying that PEW is a questionable source?"
I'm saying that if you want to compare family sizes of welfare and non-welfare families, then a study that actually compares the family sizes of welfare of non-welfare families is more useful than a survey of other factors and trying to say that it's more representative.
Actually no averages here...
"More than half (55%) of mothers who lack a high school diploma have three children or more – 29% have exactly three children, and 26% have four or more.
The likelihood of having such large families declines markedly at higher levels of education. "
I will do some more research and read your source when I get a chance. However I am still puzzled by your resistance.
- low education
- 4+ kids
Are you thinking these women are in stable relationships or have good paying jobs that enable them to not be on welfare?
It's really not that difficult. You don't need to use a proxy for being on welfare, because someone has actually studied it!
But I have net to find anyone who posted distribution info...
Just those silly averages..
My point being... Made up example showing math...
Welfare Mom Average 2.3 kids
1,1,1,1,1,3,3,3,4,5
Married Mom Average 2.2 kids
1,1,2,2,2,2,2,3,3,4
These distributions similar averages but very different meaning.
John, the problem with averages is that nobody is average, and prescribing a humongous government one-size-fits-all program means that it fits nobody. Until "we" (you and your fellow liberals) quit treating these real human beings as some sort of widespread, nameless fungal infestation to be treated and avoided, you won't solve the problem no matter how much punitive law and/or wealth redistribution you engage in.
“Until "we" (you and your fellow liberals) quit treating these real human beings as some sort of widespread, nameless fungal infestation to be treated and avoided, you won't solve the problem no matter how much punitive law and/or wealth redistribution you engage in.“
Instead, we should treat them like animals, such as you have suggested in previous comments.
Moose
Apparently I was not clear, though I find that hard to believe. I am NOT the one suggesting that they are irresponsible and incapable. I am not the one suggesting that they be spayed or neutered. I am not the one suggesting they must be "made to" do this or that. And I certainly don't think that just saying you care about them and handing them somebody else's money is "charity." Nor is it "enabling" in any good sense of the word.
Read it again.
Jerry,
The reality is that you want to make everyone so desperate and impoverished that they have no choice but to change and adopt your preferred solutions.
Now I think that is fine as an improvement motivator, however I am not sure how to protect their children from starvation and deprivation while the adult resists change and improvement.
As I asked above:
"So... Are you willing to club baby if mama refuses to cooperate by telling who daddy is? Or if she just does not know because she was high or drunk?"
What are we going to do with the parent(s) who refuse to or are not capable of self sufficiency? And their children?
Especially with many jobs in our economy being ~$30,000 per year. With 2 children, living, childcare, medical expenses, etc and a single parent... That is not going to cut it.
And please remember no where in my proposal is their spay or neutering. Just free birth control that they can use just like the middle class and wealth adults.
In your proposal is "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." Call it what you like.
"The reality is that you want to make everyone so desperate and impoverished that they have no choice but to change and adopt your preferred solutions." I can only imagine that you have no concept whatsoever of reality, at least the one that I choose to live in. You seem perfectly willing to penalize all sorts of behavior by people you categorize as incapable, irresponsible, immature, stupid, and abusive, and so any proposal that wants to treat these people as real human beings "down on their luck," help them to do better, and actually reward them for it does not fit in with your "reality."
I don't think your topic here is correct. It should be "Charity AND Enabling."
Please note I used the word "should" not "shall". I am flexible if you want to keep making her have abortions, or adopting out her accidents.
Jerry you repeatedly neglect to answer my questions about what you would do with people who choose or unable to cooperate with that social worker or do not attain the improvement goals.
Let's say momma has 3 kids that are not on the "improvement plan" and does not know or will not name the daddies...
- do we the tax payers feed the babies?
- do they go hungry?
You keep saying that miracles will happen and that these folks will all:
- stay on there meds
- give up their addictions
- start learning and working hard
- start managing their money wisely
- stop binging tv shows
- etc
Apparently this will happen because somehow the "new social workers and programs" will be that much better than the "current social workers and programs".
The reality is that your proposal has no credibility because it is based on 100% success with no historical precedence. It is just a pipe dream.
And your proposal has no credibility because it defies human nature. Mine is based on the great success of tiny pockets of charity which work with individual human beings, provide individualized help, and elicit strong cooperation and gratitude from their successful clients.
As for your question, it has no answer because it is entirely based on several false assumptions.
1. What /I/ would do is irrelevant, since I am not the social worker assigned.
2. Similarly, if I was, I am not assigned to "people." I am assigned to a specific person.
3. If I was, I would be making an individual assessment as to what constituted "cooperation" and the "improvement goals" and whether there was "adequate progress." You seem to excuse schools for such failures, but will not excuse individuals. Odd.
4. As for your second question, you presume that 100% of single mothers are unwilling and unable to care for their own kids. I don't think I ever met one. Sorry, but your straw woman is on fire. Let's try to help the 99% before we worry about the few who match your extreme stereotype.
John, does your plan include tying the tubes of men who keep fathering children? If not, this is just another in a long line of exercises in Republican misogyny.
Moose
Excuse me, Moose, but wouldn't that hamper some of the NFL's best athletes?
Jerry,
This is key to your assumptions.
"great success of tiny pockets of charity which work with individual human beings"
I agree with you that many individual human beings can helped by both charities, schools and social services. Those who have accepted that they are part of the problem and are willing to change, improve and work at it do fine.
However you offer no solution or plan for all the others as usual... Well except cut them off until they change?
Moose,
I am fine with having serial deadbeat daddies fixed. But remember that it is the woman who is given all the legal authority for reproductive choices. As far as I know the man has no legal right to prevent the woman from having his baby aborted. With great power comes great responsibilities. :-)
What you miss is that charities rely on people being willing to change to get the help the charities offer, and they go to the charity to get it. Now suppose that EVERY poor person was offered that help, and that a real person came to them and offered it? What do you know of human nature that would incline somebody to walk away from that, if they were convinced it was genuine?
"except cut them off until they change?" Yes. That is exactly what successful charities do, and what misplaced liberal compassion refuses to do. Like you, these liberals believe that these folks will NOT seize real opportunities presented to them, being too "incapable, irresponsible, immature, stupid, and abusive" to take the easy way up.
"Reproductive choices"
The woman cannot get pregnant without the man. The man's orgasm is entirely responsible for the pregnancy (Maybe you don't know this, but even if a woman orgasms during sex, she can't get pregnant without the man's orgasm.) In fact, it's the irresponsible man that is the problem.
I mean, a woman can ovulate, orgasm, and do all kinds of sexual things with a man without getting pregnant, but as soon as the man is irresponsible, the chance of pregnancy becomes real.
But now you're saying that a man who is irresponsible with small things (an orgasm) should be responsible for the large thing (whether a woman carries a pregnancy to term or not)? If you don't allow women full agency, then you open them up to men being intentionally "irresponsible" or even malicious in causing pregnancy in order to force them to carry a child. That's just grossly immoral.
Moose
"except cut them off until they change?"
Yes. That is exactly what successful charities do.
Thank you. That was the most honest you have been regarding this topic.
Now that is what I call a stick.
And I assume that when those people are broke, then child protective services will be authorized to seize all their kids?
I mean the goal of what you are proposing is to apply a great deal of pressure to get them working on improvement.
Then with no kids and no money they will become homeless...
Maybe then they will be willing to change?
Moose,
As I said, if you want to give the authority to choose if the baby lives or dies to the Mother... They also get the majority of the responsibility and consequences...
Please remember that a lot of men orgasm with or without a woman, and with or without pregnancies occurring...
So blaming the men exclusively seems some what silly, especially in our current world of women empowerment and Me Too... It seems to imply that women are victims and have no say over who inserts a penis into their vagina...
No. You seem to be incapable of doing away with your misogyny.
Or you can't comprehend a very simple point....that during sex, it is the male orgasm that causes pregnancy.
Moose
Moose,
This seems to be one of the silliest discussions we have ever had:
- Man and woman both agree to have intercourse
- Neither man or woman adequately protect themselves against an unplanned pregnancy
- Hopefully both man and woman orgasm and have fun
- Woman gets pregnant because her egg and his sperm are allowed to be in the same place at the same time. And because her uterus let's them attach and become nourished.
- Woman is then given 100% of the rights and authorities regarding the fetus her body is providing food, oxygen, etc to the forming baby.
- Woman therefore has the absolute choice on whether to let that baby be born or to have it's life end prematurely.
And you want to place the majority of responsibility for that baby being born and needing to be raised on the man? Really?
Are women all helpless victims in your world?
"And you want to place the majority of responsibility for that baby being born and needing to be raised on the man?"
You made that up.
"Are women all helpless victims in your world?"
In my world, women aren't shamed for having sex.
Moose
"Now that is what I call a stick." --John
That is what I call a CHOICE. Help is offered, help is refused, natural consequences follow. Under your plan, if a woman gets pregnant she has NO choice, her tubes are tied or her kids are taken. Thanks but no thanks, I prefer serving up carrots, and if somebody doesn't like carrots they can choose not to have them.
"In my world, women aren't shamed for having sex." - Moose
In your world, they are subsidized for it.
"In your world, they are subsidized for it."
How so?
Moose
Moose,
Oh please... "Or you can't comprehend a very simple point....that during sex, it is the male orgasm that causes pregnancy."
I like that women enjoy sex... Why would I shame them for it? Now choosing to bring babies into this world that they are incapable of raising well is another topic. Especially when they also have a choice to give them up for adoption.
Jerry,
So instead of "carrots and sticks" you want to call them "natural consequences". That's fine...
Today there are still natural consequences, they are just not as severe what you desire. I mean if:
- A person chooses to not work hard and make use of all the training resources and social worker assistance available... Or if they choose to make a lot of babies... They will stay poor but they won't starve or lose their babies due to being poor.
- A person works hard, makes use of training, counseling, etc. Gets married and has only one or two kids. They can escape poverty and buy some toys or go on vacations.
Moose,
Technically she is not subsidized for having sex, she is subsidized for every baby she keeps that she can not afford.
Let's say about this much per child per year:
- child tax credit: $2,000
- medical $5,000
- food $1,500
- childcare $5,000
- housing $????
- Other $???
Total ~$12,000 per year if the child is healthy...
More if they have special needs...
Until we hold men responsible, the problem will continue, but that doesn't fit your misogynistic views.
Moose
"Total ~$12,000 per year if the child is healthy..."
Tax/fine the absentee father.
Moose
Moose,
I am fine holding the father responsible and we discussed that above. However unfortunately many of these fine baby daddies have no income and/or end up in jail... So taxing or fining them is challenging and expensive.
Now you are so gung ho to hold the man accountable. What do you want to do to hold the woman accountable?
Please remember that the woman voluntarily had sex, did not use birth control effectively, chose to keep the baby, etc...
Or is it only the man that should pay for their irresponsible choices?
"Please remember that the woman voluntarily had sex, did not use birth control effectively...
All of which she can do and not get pregnant unless the man is irresponsible.
Again, you're shaming the woman for having sex, but saying it's too hard to hold the man responsible.
Moose
"chooses to not work hard and make use of all the training resources and social worker assistance available."
You assume that what is currently available is sufficient to lift a willing person out of poverty, or at least part-way towards self-sufficiency. But as usual you make no allowance for the fact those folks have not been offered those choices. There is a vast difference between what may be generally available and what is realistically an option for any given individual, and even less so for all individuals. Just like school vouchers, you have absolutely no clue how many people would choose a "better" school for their kids GIVEN THE MEANS and informed of the choice. And of course in your eyes these people are too "incapable, irresponsible, immature, stupid, and abusive" to make that choice anyway.
Question: If all these resources are available now, why do we still have so many in poverty?
Moose,
Look at the links above regarding the challenges... I am not making them up... Do you support the Kansas law that requires the woman to name the Father and not get in the way of collections if she wants the child's welfare check?
Apparently they want to avoid putting the Father's name on the birth certificate. That way he has no parental rights or access to the child. :-(
Again, I am okay holding the man accountable like Kansas is doing. Are you okay with that?
And you avoided my question...
Now you are so gung ho to hold the man accountable. What do you want to do to hold the woman accountable?.
I mean it is usually the child who loses in these situations. If you doubt this, look at the academic achievement gap and poverty levels for these unfortunate unlucky kids.
Jerry,
My normal reasons...
and
- service economy pays poorly
- too many low end workers
- too many illegal workers
- American Consumers
- no nationalized healthcare
- many people don't want dirty or hard jobs
- many people refuse to relocate
- many people are addicted to something
- other?
Yes...the child loses. I have never said otherwise.
We have held the woman accountable for basically forever. Time to try something that might work.
"Do you support the Kansas law that requires the woman to name the Father and not get in the way of collections if she wants the child's welfare check?"
I say offer them half of what they would normally get until they do so. I'm sure the money is important. If you withhold all funds, the child suffers. Maybe the child could be taken away if they don't name the father? I don't know.
A child has two biological parents. They need to be on the birth certificate. If there are custody issues, they should go through the courts.
I never claimed this was simple, but we've tried for ever to blame and place all responsibility on the woman while also forbidding the woman from terminating the pregnancy (until recently). Time to flip the script.
Moose
Please remember my Black Ethiopian friend and co-worker. He came here at 19 not knowing a word of English. He said he found tons of programs to help him and he used them to work himself into an engineering degree.
Where as many of the others that came around the same time are still poor and working dead end jobs.
He is always puzzled that they did not make better choices.
I think you both miss the boat. A child has and needs TWO parents, and two parents have better economic opportunities than one. Yet our current system discourages two-parent families, and discourages the single parent from finding something better to do with their time than child care or child-bearing.
So, your black Ethiopian friend navigated his way through the system and became successful. So it was possible for him, but everybody else is too "incapable... stupid..." to do it? Your friend overcame obstacles, thanks to the help he sought and was able to get. Why do you want to deny everybody else those same opportunities?
What if our system paid a two-parent family the same as two one-parent families, and then supplemented that income on a progressive scale as they made more, while /directly/ offering them opportunities for child care, transportation, job training, parenting classes... ... on an individualized program?
In short, stop treating these people as animals that need to be corralled, spayed or neutered, given their shots and fed properly because they are incapable of anything better. And that applies to both sides of this debate, and part of the problem is that we've "let George [Washington] do it." We need to find a way to restore the human connection, as charities do, and then expect human nature to do what a cold bureaucracy cannot.
Jerry,
I sincerely wish you luck in creating your rose colored world where everyone makes logical, good choices and is willing to work / learn to succeed...
I have no more time for this "almost liberal" silliness right now...
"rose colored world." That's borderline hilarious. Apparently treating your fellow human beings as human beings is some outrageous idea to you, whereas anyone who has worked with charities and directly with the less fortunate cannot begin to see it your way, where these people are hopelessly subhuman.
I believe they are all very human...
Since some will sin and fail. (see below)
Where as you seem to believe everyone is divine.
Sins
People have always been immoral, shiftless, and self-gratifying. For ages, humankind struggled to find a conceptual system to operationalize their spiritual shortcomings.
Pride is excessive belief in one's own abilities, that interferes with the individual's recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is also known as Vanity.
Envy is the desire for others' traits, status, abilities, or situation.
Gluttony is an inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires.
Lust is an inordinate craving for the pleasures of the body.
Anger is manifested in the individual who spurns love and opts instead for fury. It is also known as Wrath.
Greed is the desire for material wealth or gain, ignoring the realm of the spiritual. It is also called Avarice or Covetousness.
Sloth is the avoidance of physical or spiritual work.
Now what again is your plan for the very human people who fail to live up to your expectations of perfection?
Will you withhold funding until they atone for their humanity?
Maybe ensure they lose their kids to really motivate them?
I keep envisioning you as one of the Catholic folks who stole Indian children from the reservations in the name of helping and saving them.
Sorry, but my work with "those people" convinces me that we all make mistakes and we cannot, as liberals believe, become perfect by our own efforts or even with divine help. We DO, however, all have that divine spark and we are evolutionarily designed to work in cooperation with one another-- it is a powerful force. But the other thing we do is not waste time on those few determined to take advantage of our help or refuse to follow the rules of the society. Yes, those folks will NOT get the no-strings handouts we all suspect they are getting now. I believe those folks are few, and you seem to believe they are many. You believe the situation is therefore hopeless unless we impose harsh rules on their behavior to get the aid. I have to imagine that you are going to deny help to far more people--out of a larger population-- than I would from a smaller one.
You are also missing that many of the current recipients are either a) doing what they should be doing already, or b) do not need the aid they are getting and will not change behavior to continue it, or c) can get by without the aid and prefer their independence. Would you really lump all of them together and cut them off or continue their aid by some other arbitrary and singular criterion?
So you envision that there are a lot of:
- welfare moms getting pregnant multiple times
- baby daddies that need to be held accountable
I mean they are pretty much the only individuals impacted by my plan.
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.
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.
And it sounds like you are on board with.
5.The welfare payments and service should be set up to make recipients work, learn, mature and improve their self sufficiency.
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.
And I am pretty sure we are aligned on:
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.
Of course you are against ensuring that poor men and women have equal access to quality contraceptive, which I will never understand. I mean no one is forcing anything on them.
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)
So you are happy to cancel welfare benefits for anyone that you deem to be:
"determined to take advantage of our help or refuse to follow the rules of the society"
You are happy to run them into financial failure and take their kids away to motivate them to change their evil ways...
Where is the difference here?
Now as for this:
You are also missing that many of the current recipients are either
a) doing what they should be doing already, or
b) do not need the aid they are getting and will not change behavior to continue it, or
c) can get by without the aid and prefer their independence.
Would you really lump all of them together and cut them off or continue their aid by some other arbitrary and singular criterion?
A. I agree with. They are not impact by my proposals.
B. I have no idea if this is accurate. Source? And again, if they can get by without welfare... They are not impact by my proposals.
C. I have no idea if this is accurate. Source? And again, if they can get by without welfare... They are not impacted by my proposals.
Please remember that my accountability and training requirements only apply to people who are being paid by the tax payers to raise their children and our future citizens.
So yes I am happy to clamp down on:
- chronic repeat offender baby mammas and daddies...
Aren't you?
By the way, I agree with Sean and yourself that this not a huge group compared to the number of the 23 million households on food stamps. Let's assume 5% for argument.
That means ~1 million households may be impacted.
Or can think of any good reason for any 2 child household receiving food stamps to be bringing more babies into their family?
"The welfare payments and service should be set up to make recipients work, learn, mature and improve their self sufficiency." OK, so you are going to starve the children until the parents do what you want, rather they are capable of doing so (you insist they are not) or not. Most of these folks will simply not take the money rather than accept your bullying.
"So you are happy to cancel welfare benefits for anyone that you deem to be: 'determined to take advantage of our help or refuse to follow the rules of the society'" Not at all. Everybody gets the opportunity to better themselves. When they prove themselves unwilling to be helped to do so, yes, we give them the freedom they prefer.
"Or can think of any good reason for any 2 child household receiving food stamps to be bringing more babies into their family?" Once again we have a single standard-- John's-- for judging 1 million individual families, almost regardless of circumstance.
A. People doing everything right, BUT, they have another child so John says, "no help for YOU."
B. People who are fraudulently collecting the aid. Other jobs or income.
C. Big family in the Mississippi Delta with a big garden, fish in the river, and game in the woods.
1. In your words... They lose their children and get "the freedom they prefer".
2. At least I provide a standard that is centered around child safety and development. You give no standard except that our "tens of thousands of social worker civil servants will do the right thing".
3. Please remember that my proposal only impacts those receiving welfare. If you are or can be self sufficient, have as many kids as you wish.
Right now, if you are or can be self-sufficient, you can have as many kids as you want and still get welfare. Under your proposal, if you are or can be self-sufficient but make no effort, you get welfare unless you have another kid. I fail to see how that is better for the society and economy in general, for the specific adult(s) involved, or for the existing children. You have never explained how you were going to "force people to be better parents" in some fashion that does not harm the children.
The only tool you have is a hammer, and people do not like being hammered – they resist. If you offer people a better way and make it easier for them, you can save the hammer for the 1% that like it.
NO, self sufficient means that your pay, gardening, fishing, etc provides you enough resources that you can feed, house and care for your family in a reasonable fashion... Without government assistance.
Remember that only people with low incomes who can get assistance and only for a fixed period of time. (>2 years) Unless you can provide a source regarding adults who are on the programs indefinitely.
Only the kids within poor families get long term support.
So by definition, one is not self sufficient if they are accepting welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, etc.
Stopping welfare mom and baby daddy from keeping baby 3, 4, 5, 6, etc is automatically helping baby 1 and/or baby 2... Besides helping our tax payers, schools, social workers, prisions and society as a whole.
And where is that boundary for self-sufficiency? Is it exactly the same dollars for that Mississippi Delta family as a single mom in the projects? Once again you are standing in judgment of millions of people you have no way of knowing, each of which is different. If it was YOUR money, would you not want to meet the family and find out how you could help them, make sure your money was well spent and not just enabling indolence and squalor? So why should we not do the same with public money?
Maybe an example would help. Mom is on welfare and has two kids. We find out that the baby daddy and she are getting married soon and a third baby is on the way. Daddy actually has a job that will reduce but not eliminate the need for welfare. So, cut them off for having that third child?
Oh, and "only the kids...get long term support." Where does that 1-year-old deposit the check? Or does Momma get it? :-^
Self sufficiency is pretty straight forward... If you are getting money from the government to care for your family... You are not self sufficient...
If you are not self sufficient, you accept certain rules as part of getting financial support from the tax payers. If you prefer freedom, learn how to become self sufficient
Of course there is some room for social worker good common sense as always.
Please remember that you are the one promoting that the government should give more checks to mama and papa... (ie voucher) Don't tell me you are now saying you don't trust mama to use money to feed her child.
Please remember that I am the one trying to limit the number of babies (ie dollars) irresponsible mamas can have. You are the one arguing to allow irresponsible mamas to have more babies (ie receive more dollars).
I don't understand how we can continue to talk past each other like this. You keep saying we have "irresponsible mamas." What I want to do is hold them responsible by showing them and helping them to a better way.
Self-sufficiency is a goal and takes a process. If we don't go from 0 to 60 instantly, you're going to scrap the whole engine. I'm proposing rewarding progress.
"Of course there is room for social worker good common sense." And yet we have far to little of either social workers or common sense in the system. Adding a couple more rules, like NO BABIES FOR YOU! is not going to add to either.
I'm not proposing blank checks. I'm saying "we"--a real person with resources-- will help you to get "back on your feet as soon as possible," whatever that takes in your individual circumstance. You know, just like a charity?
It sounds a lot like today's system...
Except with some dream social workers and dream recipients...
With millions of recipients, a majority of our country's jobs paying low amounts, and hundreds of thousands of social workers... It seems like a liberal feel good dream... (short on specifics long on wishful thinking) Good luck getting it off the ground.
As opposed to some nightmare "pregnancy overseers" and some nightmare "Angel Adams" recipients.
I must admit that in the current ethos, your plan has a small but greater chance of success because it does not recognize any real human beings in this "system"-- they are all fictional composites. They are a homogeneous "them" who are irresponsible and incapable, according to you, or worthless political pawns to make the elites feel good about themselves for "caring," in the current system.
My plan requires true charitable feelings, actions and individual attention. We can't have that because then the elites (TPTB) cannot throw somebody else's money at the problem and declare themselves wonderful.
If I am reading you correctly, you think "society" saves more money by forced abortions and handing out a full welfare check, to having people take low-wage jobs and supplement their income with most of a welfare check. I cannot imagine that being good math.
We already have agreed that my plan impacts very few people. (relatively speaking) And those are only the chronic "welfare moms" who love babies and the emotional / financial support they bring. Or "welfare moms" who just are plain irresponsible.
And no one is forcing anyone to get an abortion. They can also have the baby and give it up for adoption to a family who can afford to care for it.
Pretty much everyone else continues to get the caring short term assistance as they do today.
Please remember as Sean and Laurie keep trying to explain...
Almost all able bodied welfare recipients are working.
So your statement is the current state of things.
"having people take low-wage jobs and supplement their income with most of a welfare check"
The only people likely to not be doing this are the moms with no husband and too many kids. They just don't have the time or money to work...
Somebody look up "average time on welfare" or "long term welfare dependency" or "multi-generational welfare." Like our border discussions, I have to ask what number of people are you willing to condemn to long-term misery, rather than treating them like human beings?
I want to eliminate poverty and save kids, that is why I am willing to show them tough love to irresponsible, incapable or lazy adults...
Not sure what you want to do... Except keep up the wishful thinking and give them a hug... :-)
I've tried to explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. I want government "charity" to look a lot more like real charity and a lot less like a heartless system whereby some "elites" think they're doing good as they enable a waste of money and of lives. Results don't matter, only the "noble" motivations of the elite, and impugning and ignoring the motivations of everybody else.
I understand that you have good intentions...
But unfortunately no viable plan...
You forgot the "IMHO." Charities all over are doing exactly what I propose right now, today, and with far less resources, while the current system spends trillions and makes no progress against "poverty." Which is the more effective?
You admit your plan affects only the few who insist on taking help and not improving themselves, and having babies rather than caring for the ones they have. My approach helps everyone but those few. Either is viable. One is more likely to succeed.
Please feel free to keep telling yourself that...
Telling myself that your plan is doomed to failure? More likely to be implemented because it takes the same dim view of human nature as the "enlightened" liberals, but less likely to succeed because that view is wrong.
Post a Comment