Hunger Makes Pple Work Harder, and Other Stupid Things We Used to Believe Abt Poverty

[imagep]

Re: Hunger Makes Pple Work Harder, and Other Stupid Things We Used to Believe Abt Pov

An important distinction. Needless to say, you'll get no conservative fans from this point of view.

Yea, I realize that.

I don't think I have ever gotten a conservative fan for anything, even though my positions are often more conservative that the conservative talking points.

It never fails to amaze me how many self proclaimed conservatives will suggest that we should means test social security benefits, meaning that if someone saved money their entire lives and invested it well, they wouldn't be eligible to receive the social security and medicare benefits that they paid for. Thats an incredibly leftist idea and a movement towards more welfare, instead of less. Yet somehow they insist that it is "fair".

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Hunger Makes Pple Work Harder, and Other Stupid Things We Used to Believe Abt Pov

Seems to me that you missed that he was saying that we shouldn't punish children for having terrible parents.

Or at least that's what I thought he was getting at.

You make the mistake of most liberals, seeing the gov't aid paid directly to the terrible parents, as mostly benefitting the children. That aid goes mainly to help the terrible parent(s), who will then help raise more terrible children. Note that without creating any "needy" children that these morons (potential terrible parents) would actually have to work to support themselves; only by having children do these morons (now terrible parents) get gov't social "safety net" program funds tossed their way (far in excess of their economic production). Morons tend to beget morons yet liberals see that as a good thing mainly because these "needy" morons then vote for liberals to keep themselves alive and able to beget more morons.

 

[imagep]

Re: Hunger Makes Pple Work Harder, and Other Stupid Things We Used to Believe Abt Pov

You make the mistake of most liberals, seeing the gov't aid paid directly to the terrible parents, as mostly benefitting the children. That aid goes mainly to help the terrible parent(s), who will then help raise more terrible children. Note that without creating any "needy" children that these morons (potential terrible parents) would actually have to work to support themselves; only by having children do these morons (now terrible parents) get gov't social "safety net" program funds tossed their way (far in excess of their economic production). Morons tend to beget morons yet liberals see that as a good thing mainly because these "needy" morons then vote for liberals to keep themselves alive and able to beget more morons.

Thats exactly why I don't support means tested welfare, but I do support things like free school meals (for every student), and an expansion of our school hours and possibly even gov paid for daycare and preschool. I thought I mentioned that.

Government benefits for children should be targeted at programs that directly help children, without the parents being the middleman, taking a cut for their own consumption.

 

[JWhite]

Re: Hunger Makes Pple Work Harder, and Other Stupid Things We Used to Believe Abt Pov

Ditto dat. those three things are actually the most valuable things in society. And at some point, we are all either children, elderly or ill (at least one of those three).

It's been too long. Just finished a month long sabbatical from internet while I moved my family across this great country. I am glad to be back to the forum...

You get the label "liberal" far more than you deserve Imagep. The idea presented above that society must take care of their children, elderly, and ill misses a subtle point that often puts people at odds when they both want the same end but just see the means differently. I am pretty sure "ttwtt" doesn't want the children, elderly or ill to simply be killed off or ignored any more than "head of Joaquin" does. Or you or I for that matter. The crux of the argument is really in how we define society and the state. When we conflate state power and centralized state safety nets as society or community then we are failing to make a distinction that is crucial in this debate. Community consists of voluntary associations and networks that are emergent. The state has an enormously high cost to exit and really does not require voluntary association. These two things are different and which organization is the central helping hand in the lives of the needy is the crux of this debate. I wish debaters would clearly state if they are for a community safety net or a State safety net as this will better define where they stand on this issue. It is possible that some are for no safety net but I would bet they have no problem with charity or churches or other voluntary organizations providing a helping hand to those in need. Effectively they would be for a community safety net even if they haven't given the idea much thought. I always appreciate your balanced pragmatic approach in your posts on this forum

I have yet to meet someone who truly hates poor people or sick people. I think we are capable of debating the issues rather then slinging mud at each other about who hates people more.

 

[Fletch]

Re: Hunger Makes Pple Work Harder, and Other Stupid Things We Used to Believe Abt Pov

Yea, I realize that.

I don't think I have ever gotten a conservative fan for anything, even though my positions are often more conservative that the conservative talking points.

It never fails to amaze me how many self proclaimed conservatives will suggest that we should means test social security benefits, meaning that if someone saved money their entire lives and invested it well, they wouldn't be eligible to receive the social security and medicare benefits that they paid for. Thats an incredibly leftist idea and a movement towards more welfare, instead of less. Yet somehow they insist that it is "fair".

Well, I agree with that completely. There isn't a worse idea out there than the means testing of SS. The reason conservatives support it is the very reason why I am not a conservative--despite what hacks like Head of Joaquin say, conservative do not oppose the welfare state, nor do they wish to dismantle it. The best way to view conservatives is as efficiency experts for the welfare state. The left wants to raise taxes on the rich, the right wants to cut the benefits of the rich. No real difference in my book.

 

[Ahlevah]

Re: Hunger Makes Pple Work Harder, and Other Stupid Things We Used to Believe Abt Pov

Personally, for a while in college when I became unexpectedly unemployed, I would buy week old bread, 5 loaves for a buck, at a local grocery store and a tub of margarine for 99¢ or occasionally peanut butter for $1.99, and live mostly on that for a week. Granted that was 30 years ago, but even at todays prices, I could feed myself for less than $10 a week if I had to.

There's a bakery outlet store in a neighboring city. We go there on occasion and load up on bagels, muffins, and such. They actually freeze pretty well. The bakery often throws in extra stuff in for free.

 

[RGacky3]

Re: Hunger Makes Pple Work Harder, and Other Stupid Things We Used to Believe Abt Pov

Yep. One only has to observe the efforts of illegal aliens to prove that point. If the social "safety net" programs provide benefits that exceed those possible with full time mimimum wage employment then it does not take a rocket scientist to see that one could prefer to pass up that "opportunity" and remain on the dole.

... Then raise the minimum wage .... Also people don't LIKE not having a job ... which is why unemployment and weflare is corolated to teh health of the economy ... some people just don't get jobs at some times, some people get those jobs later, it's not like when the economy goes sour people suddenly get lazy.

Only a liberal sees not getting their "fair share" of the wages earned by others as a punishment.

Taxes come from wages, corporate profits, and income made of the labor of others ... infact had we an actual progressive in office, taxes woudl come more from corporate profits, capital gains, and other money made from the labor and work of others ....

You make the mistake of most liberals, seeing the gov't aid paid directly to the terrible parents, as mostly benefitting the children. That aid goes mainly to help the terrible parent(s), who will then help raise more terrible children. Note that without creating any "needy" children that these morons (potential terrible parents) would actually have to work to support themselves; only by having children do these morons (now terrible parents) get gov't social "safety net" program funds tossed their way (far in excess of their economic production). Morons tend to beget morons yet liberals see that as a good thing mainly because these "needy" morons then vote for liberals to keep themselves alive and able to beget more morons.

A lot of those "morons" vote conservative because their pastors tell them too.

Or maybe people who HAVE children lose their jobs ... or are in a town that suffers an economic disaster .... You're assuming these people are morons ... which is rediculous, most people on welfare are on it for a short period of time, very short period of time, and just need it to survive until they can get their situation better.

Take that away and more and more people end up in permanent deep poverty.

 

[csbrown28]

Re: Hunger Makes Pple Work Harder, and Other Stupid Things We Used to Believe Abt Pov

Only a liberal sees not getting their "fair share" of the wages earned by others as a punishment.

Sorry, I'm late to this conversation..But I couldn't help but reply to this....

I didn't see the words "far share" in Joaquin's post. This isn't about "fair", it's about empathy and compassion and caring about the suffering of those that are incapable of caring or defending themselves (i.e. children). It's about recognizing that the next generations attitudes and willingness to be productive members of society depends on large part of how they are treated and the opportunities they are given as children. I think it's sad that people like you can objectify and depersonalize the suffering of children to justify the "it's mine and you can't have it" attitude. Frankly I think it's shameful that society at large (though mostly Conservative and Libertarian) can say these sorts of things with a straight face.

Is the system perfect? No not at all, but the question should not be if we should should have to give up a portion of our earnings to support society and in this case welfare, but how best to do it so that it accomplishes the goals we set for the system, which imo are to provide opportunity to able bodied people and their children (and basic needs for non-able bodied). Now I don't think that the current system welfare necessarily achieves the goals that it should and I'm willing to argue for and support a system that encourages people to become more productive. I support a system that gives the greatest opportunity possible given the resources allocated to that system with the ultimate goal of having greater prosperity throughout all of society. The idea is that society as a whole achieves it's maximum potential when the greatest number of people are invested in it.

Having said that, if you ask me how to best to achieve the goals I support, I'd say that I don't have all of the answers, but I'm convinced that the way to fail is for the Randian ideals of selfishness to proliferate....

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Hunger Makes Pple Work Harder, and Other Stupid Things We Used to Believe Abt Pov

Sorry, I'm late to this conversation..But I couldn't help but reply to this....

I didn't see the words "far share" in Joaquin's post. This isn't about "fair", it's about empathy and compassion and caring about the suffering of those that are incapable of caring or defending themselves (i.e. children). It's about recognizing that the next generations attitudes and willingness to be productive members of society depends on large part of how they are treated and the opportunities they are given as children. I think it's sad that people like you can objectify and depersonalize the suffering of children to justify the "it's mine and you can't have it" attitude. Frankly I think it's shameful that society at large (though mostly Conservative and Libertarian) can say these sorts of things with a straight face.

Is the system perfect? No not at all, but the question should not be if we should should have to give up a portion of our earnings to support society and in this case welfare, but how best to do it so that it accomplishes the goals we set for the system, which imo are to provide opportunity to able bodied people and their children (and basic needs for non-able bodied). Now I don't think that the current system welfare necessarily achieves the goals that it should and I'm willing to argue for and support a system that encourages people to become more productive. I support a system that gives the greatest opportunity possible given the resources allocated to that system with the ultimate goal of having greater prosperity throughout all of society. The idea is that society as a whole achieves it's maximum potential when the greatest number of people are invested in it.

Having said that, if you ask me how to best to achieve the goals I support, I'd say that I don't have all of the answers, but I'm convinced that the way to fail is for the Randian ideals of selfishness to proliferate....

The bolded (above) accurately reflects my feelings as well. Currently you are magically transformed from an able bodied, lazy adult into a needy family by the addition of a dependent (usually a child). That system is simply insane, as is having the level of "safety net" assistance offered ever exceeding that which can be earned by working a full-time job at the minmum wage. Under no circumstances should adding a child "earn" the parent a reward, either by reducing income taxation owed or by offering additional public assistance (e.g. EITC). That in no way beneifts the prosperity of society, it simply encourages the social ill of out of wedlock childbirth. There is a vast difference between "falling on hard times" through no fault of your own and creating those hard times by creating dependents that you have no way of supporting without "sharing" the wages of others.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Re: Hunger Makes Pple Work Harder, and Other Stupid Things We Used to Believe Abt Pov

The bolded (above) accurately reflects my feelings as well. Currently you are magically transformed from an able bodied, lazy adult into a needy family by the addition of a dependent (usually a child). That system is simply insane, as is having the level of "safety net" assistance offered ever exceeding that which can be earned by working a full-time job at the minmum wage. Under no circumstances should adding a child "earn" the parent a reward, either by reducing income taxation owed or by offering additional public assistance (e.g. EITC). That in no way beneifts the prosperity of society, it simply encourages the social ill of out of wedlock childbirth. There is a vast difference between "falling on hard times" through no fault of your own and creating those hard times by creating dependents that you have no way of supporting without "sharing" the wages of others.

While I can agree with you in principle, what to do about the child placed in this situation? They had no choice to be born to a lazy parent, they have neither the power nor the capability of changing their situation, yet they exist. Solutions?

 

[Captain Adverse]

Re: Hunger Makes Pple Work Harder, and Other Stupid Things We Used to Believe Abt Pov

Getting rid of food stamps for people who can work but won't work is the issue not hunger, nice try though.

There are 47 million people on food stamps, only 4.3 million are on welfare.

Hunger itself might not make people work harder, but the fear of being hungry does. If we provide people who accept poverty with just enough money to get by, thats all they are going to do - just get by. If we tell them that they have to fend for themselves, they will fend for themselves, make a living, and sometimes end up making a darned good living, far in excess of "just getting by"...

Reverse the question to ask "would you trade your welfare check for a paycheck and the responsibilities that come with having to have a real job, and ask it to a welfare slacker who is perfectly happy living in poverty, and the answer would likely be "hell know, I'd rather take a smidgen of free money with no responsibilities, than to have to worry about a job that includes responsibilities and requires me getting some skills."

Note the number of people on welfare (4.3 million). Assuming for the sake of argument only 3.3 million are able bodied and capable of working, lets add them to the 11.5 million currently unemployed job seekers. That brings the total up to around 15 million needing jobs. Currently there are only 3.3 million jobs available throughout the USA, not all of which unskilled or low-skilled persons can fill. But assuming otherwise, thats one job available for five applicants...meaning four out of five people will stay unemployed regardless of trying to find work or training up in skills/education.

I always thought welfare for the able bodied should consist of a bunk in a dorm, a lukewarm common shower and a couple meals a day of Bachelor Chow.

And a bus pass.

Really? So you would hire a smelly (showers but no soap), unclothed, unhealthy individual to work in your office or business? Must be a big favorite of all those homeless job seekers then.

Where are all these jobs you all seem to think such people are missing out on? Seriously?

I am not a big supporter of social welfare, unless it is to take care of wounded soldiers, our honored elderly, and those who are born or develop handicaps that make it very difficult to function in society. However, I am also aware that we do not have enough actual work to go around for everyone who does not have a job. There are also other issues of poverty and education that exacerbate these problems.

I would rather see social welfare funds going to day care for children and job training requirements for adults. Still, what good a trained adult if there is no job to fill?

So instead of assuming all persons on welfare are lazy single parents who don't want to work, how about some real solutions about the LACK of employment opportunities and day care programs to let the adults work?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Hunger Makes Pple Work Harder, and Other Stupid Things We Used to Believe Abt Pov

While I can agree with you in principle, what to do about the child placed in this situation? They had no choice to be born to a lazy parent, they have neither the power nor the capability of changing their situation, yet they exist. Solutions?

As harsh as this may sound, IMHO, it is better for the child and society in the long run. If you have a pet that you cannot (or will not) feed and otherwise properly care for then that pet is immediately removed from the "abuser" and placed in a shelter for treatment, care and adoption - there is no "reward" or assistance offered to that pet owner so that they may then better care for their pet, in fact, they may be charged with a crime of animal cruelty.

Before you squeal that children are not pets, consider only the well being of the child (and society), not the emotional well being of the child "abuser". I am in no way saying that a very brief period of minimal temporary assistance not be considered, but only if that parent can show prior ability to support themseves - no "help" for those that have dropped out of HS and never had a job. Out of wedlock childbirth has now become a "profession" that pays far above minimum wage - that has to be ended.

 

[csbrown28]

Re: Hunger Makes Pple Work Harder, and Other Stupid Things We Used to Believe Abt Pov

The bolded (above) accurately reflects my feelings as well.

So do you support the goals I outlined? Do you think there can ever be a case where you're money is taken from you on a compulsory basis where that money is used to help the "poor" to the net benefit for society as a whole?

Currently you are magically transformed from an able bodied, lazy adult into a needy family by the addition of a dependent (usually a child).

Who believes this?

That system is simply insane, as is having the level of "safety net" assistance offered ever exceeding that which can be earned by working a full-time job at the minmum wage.

That sentence was a bit confusing...Once more?

Under no circumstances should adding a child "earn" the parent a reward, either by reducing income taxation owed or by offering additional public assistance (e.g. EITC). That in no way beneifts the prosperity of society, it simply encourages the social ill of out of wedlock childbirth.

So then, do we help the child? If so, how do we help the child without rewarding the parent?

The irony is that most attempts to care for the child with the goal of excluding the parent is generally more expensive and isn't necessarily best for the child (i.e. less efficient). Taking a child from a parent that loves them and doesn't abuse them, does more harm than good for the child that (i hope we can agree) we are trying to help.

In the end I don't see an easy fix. Personally I'm willing to help the child, even if that means some of that help goes to an undeserving parent. If you can think of something better, by all means, I'm all ears.

I think about it like this.....I think the goal should be to create as few of the kinds of mothers who have children just to collect a check. Giving the children of those mothers opportunity means they will be less likely to repeat the mistakes of their parent/s thus reducing the problem over time. The point is that the fix is with the kids, not with the parents.....

Having grown up with a welfare mom in the 70's I can tell you that no reasonably capable person wants to be on welfare. Anyone that paints the welfare picture as poor people sitting on their asses enjoying their lives on the dole is simply trying to soothe their consciences as they support eliminating programs that help the poor.

There is a vast difference between "falling on hard times" through no fault of your own and creating those hard times by creating dependents that you have no way of supporting without "sharing" the wages of others.

I agree to some extent that anyone that has a child they can't care for, and thus leaves it to society to provide care, should only be able to benefit from welfare if they are willing to use long term contraception.(maybe something implanted?).

I realize that is controversial, and I can think of a zillion instances where there might be room for exception, so I support the idea in theory, not necessarily in practice, at least until someone smarter than me refined the idea.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Re: Hunger Makes Pple Work Harder, and Other Stupid Things We Used to Believe Abt Pov

As harsh as this may sound, IMHO, it is better for the child and society in the long run. If you have a pet that you cannot (or will not) feed and otherwise properly care for then that pet is immediately removed from the "abuser" and placed in a shelter for treatment, care and adoption - there is no "reward" or assistance offered to that pet owner so that they may then better care for their pet, in fact, they may be charged with a crime of animal cruelty.

Before you squeal that children are not pets, consider only the well being of the child (and society), not the emotional well being of the child "abuser". I am in no way saying that a very brief period of minimal temporary assistance not be considered, but only if that parent can show prior ability to support themseves - no "help" for those that have dropped out of HS and never had a job. Out of wedlock childbirth has now become a "profession" that pays far above minimum wage - that has to be ended.

Hey! you know me enough by now to know I am not the "squealing" type. LOL

I agree, but by taking charge of such children we are still allowing the parent(s) to continue to act irresponsibly while we now shoulder the full societal burden of raising these kids for the next 18 years. Are we Spartans, raising generations of kids on the government dole? Thats almost as expensive, if not potentially more so in the long run, than current social welfare programs.

 

[csbrown28]

Re: Hunger Makes Pple Work Harder, and Other Stupid Things We Used to Believe Abt Pov

As harsh as this may sound, IMHO, it is better for the child and society in the long run.

It's easy to say, can you provide evidence for this idea?

If you have a pet that you cannot (or will not) feed and otherwise properly care for then that pet is immediately removed from the "abuser" and placed in a shelter for treatment, care and adoption - there is no "reward" or assistance offered to that pet owner so that they may then better care for their pet, in fact, they may be charged with a crime of animal cruelty.

MAking the statement below does not free you from the false analogy.

Before you squeal that children are not pets, consider only the well being of the child (and society), not the emotional well being of the child "abuser".

Something is missing in that sentence. I get the general theme, but not sure exactly where you were going with this sentence.

I am in no way saying that a very brief period of minimal temporary assistance not be considered, but only if that parent can show prior ability to support themseves - no "help" for those that have dropped out of HS and never had a job. Out of wedlock childbirth has now become a "profession" that pays far above minimum wage - that has to be ended.

It's sounds to me like you resent the thought that someone might get free money they didn't earn (since you don't), pisses you off more than the thought of a child who has to suffer because they have crappy parents.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Hunger Makes Pple Work Harder, and Other Stupid Things We Used to Believe Abt Pov

So do you support the goals I outlined? Do you think there can ever be a case where you're money is taken from you on a compulsory basis where that money is used to help the "poor" to the net benefit for society as a whole?

Yes. A perfect example is economic need based college education/job training assistance for academically qualifed applicants.

Who believes this?

Note the absense of non-disabled single folks qualifying for ANY assistance in the folowing "safety net" programs but, add a child and you are instantly included:

Medicaid: Federal law requires states to cover certain mandatory eligibility groups, including qualified parents, children, and pregnant women with low income, as well as older adults and people with disabilities with low income.

The Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) was created in 1997 through an amendment to the Social Security Act to provide health care coverage to low-income children not already eligible for Medicaid. Like Medicaid, CHIP is jointly financed by states and the federal government. States have the option of using CHIP funds to expand their existing Medicaid program, create a separate stand-alone CHIP, or do a combination of both.

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) provides financial help for children and their parents or relatives who are living with them. Monthly cash payments help pay for food, clothing, housing, utilities, furniture, transportation, telephone, laundry, household equipment, medical supplies not paid for by Medicaid and other basic needs. The amount of the TANF payment depends on family size and income.

That sentence was a bit confusing...Once more?

The maximum public assistance amount offered should not exceed that earned by working a full-time minimum wage job - about $15K/year.

So then, do we help the child? If so, how do we help the child without rewarding the parent?

The irony is that most attempts to care for the child with the goal of excluding the parent is generally more expensive and isn't necessarily best for the child (i.e. less efficient). Taking a child from a parent that loves them and doesn't abuse them, does more harm than good for the child that (i hope we can agree) we are trying to help.

In the end I don't see an easy fix. Personally I'm willing to help the child, even if that means some of that help goes to an undeserving parent. If you can think of something better, by all means, I'm all ears

I think about it like this.....I think the goal should be to create as few of the kinds of mothers who have children just to collect a check. Giving the children of those mothers opportunity means they will be less likely to repeat the mistakes of their parent/s thus reducing the problem over time. The point is that the fix is with the kids, not with the parents.....

Having grown up with a welfare mom in the 70's I can tell you that no reasonably capable person wants to be on welfare. Anyone that paints the welfare picture as poor people sitting on their asses enjoying their lives on the dole is simply trying to soothe their consciences as they support eliminating programs that help the poor..

See my post #37 in this thread.

I agree to some extent that anyone that has a child they can't care for, and thus leaves it to society to provide care, should only be able to benefit from welfare if they are willing to use long term contraception.(maybe something implanted?).

I realize that is controversial, and I can think of a zillion instances where there might be room for exception, so I support the idea in theory, not necessarily in practice, at least until someone smarter than me refined the idea.

That still makes having a child entitle them to 18 years of life on the dole.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Hunger Makes Pple Work Harder, and Other Stupid Things We Used to Believe Abt Pov

It's easy to say, can you provide evidence for this idea?



MAking the statement below does not free you from the false analogy.



Something is missing in that sentence. I get the general theme, but not sure exactly where you were going with this sentence.



It's sounds to me like you resent the thought that someone might get free money they didn't earn (since you don't), pisses you off more than the thought of a child who has to suffer because they have crappy parents.

I love the argument that one must provide evidence for the success of non-existant programs/policy changes, before they can be discussed. Perhaps you can show me that the out of wedlock childbirth rate has not risen dramatically since the "great society" programs started (around 1966) and now stands above 30% for whites, 50% for hispanics and 70% for blacks (41% overall). Obviously I cannot absolutely prove direct causation, yet the coorelation is surely an extremely suspicious coincidence. If proving "success" is to be the measure for "good" policy then spending trillions on "safety net" programs to keep the US poverty rate unchanged at 12% to 15% is clearly not evident of that success. These programs have done absolutely nothing to reduce poverty, they simply make being poor more comfortable - hardlly an incentive to get off of them.

 

[csbrown28]

Re: Hunger Makes Pple Work Harder, and Other Stupid Things We Used to Believe Abt Pov

Yes. A perfect example is economic need based college education/job training assistance for academically qualified applicants.

I agree that job training is important. Since an organization or even a countries ability to maintain a leading roll in business and the world is lagey predicated on their ability to change and adapt, easy access to job training will help people meet the demands of an ever changing global economy.

Having said that, what do you do with those that aren't "academically qualified"? Would you support education that would allow them to become academically qualified?

Note the absense of non-disabled single folks qualifying for ANY assistance in the folowing "safety net" programs but, add a child and you are instantly included:

Medicaid: Federal law requires states to cover certain mandatory eligibility groups, including qualified parents, children, and pregnant women with low income, as well as older adults and people with disabilities with low income.

The Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) was created in 1997 through an amendment to the Social Security Act to provide health care coverage to low-income children not already eligible for Medicaid. Like Medicaid, CHIP is jointly financed by states and the federal government. States have the option of using CHIP funds to expand their existing Medicaid program, create a separate stand-alone CHIP, or do a combination of both.

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) provides financial help for children and their parents or relatives who are living with them. Monthly cash payments help pay for food, clothing, housing, utilities, furniture, transportation, telephone, laundry, household equipment, medical supplies not paid for by Medicaid and other basic needs. The amount of the TANF payment depends on family size and income.

You didn't answer the question. I asked who believes this and you replied by citing justification for your position.

The maximum public assistance amount offered should not exceed that earned by working a full-time minimum wage job - about $15K/year.

Just out of curiosity, why?

See my post #37 in this thread.

I replied to post #37 which doesn't answer the question, but we can continue this question there.

That still makes having a child entitle them to 18 years of life on the dole.

You make it sound like collecting assistance is like hitting the lottery. I disagree with your unspoken assertion that being on welfare is some sort of easy street that most people that collect welfare and assistance are happy to stay where they are.

I'd assert that most people don't like their lives on assistance and would seek opportunity if they could or knew how. I'd further assert that many can't navigate the intense levels of red tape and often give up trying to improve.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Hunger Makes Pple Work Harder, and Other Stupid Things We Used to Believe Abt Pov

I agree that job training is important. Since an organization or even a countries ability to maintain a leading roll in business and the world is lagey predicated on their ability to change and adapt, easy access to job training will help people meet the demands of an ever changing global economy.

Having said that, what do you do with those that aren't "academically qualified"? Would you support education that would allow them to become academically qualified?




You didn't answer the question. I asked who believes this and you replied by citing justification for your position.



Just out of curiosity, why?




I replied to post #37 which doesn't answer the question, but we can continue this question there.



You make it sound like collecting assistance is like hitting the lottery. I disagree with your unspoken assertion that being on welfare is some sort of easy street that most people that collect welfare and assistance are happy to stay where they are.

I'd assert that most people don't like their lives on assistance and would seek opportunity if they could or knew how. I'd further assert that many can't navigate the intense levels of red tape and often give up trying to improve.

There is little to do with folks that drop out of HS, which is free and includes free meals now. If public assistance provides more income than working an entry level full-time job then it is a no brainer to go that route (even if it means having a child) instead. Many people look at the cash benefits of a single program, e.g. TANF, and assume that is the sum total of benefits offered - yet forget that qualifying for one "safety net" program usually includes qulaifiction for many more (of the 18 such "low income" family assistance programs.

 

[csbrown28]

Re: Hunger Makes Pple Work Harder, and Other Stupid Things We Used to Believe Abt Pov

I love the argument that one must provide evidence for the success of non-existant programs/policy changes, before they can be discussed. Perhaps you can show me that the out of wedlock childbirth rate has not risen dramatically since the "great society" programs started (around 1966) and now stands above 30% for whites, 50% for hispanics and 70% for blacks (41% overall). Obviously I cannot absolutely prove direct causation, yet the coorelation is surely an extremely suspicious coincidence. If proving "success" is to be the measure for "good" policy then spending trillions on "safety net" programs to keep the US poverty rate unchanged at 12% to 15% is clearly not evident of that success. These programs have done absolutely nothing to reduce poverty, they simply make being poor more comfortable - hardlly an incentive to get off of them.

Ok, well let me throw this out there....

Can we agree that incentive is the problem?

Would you say it's ok to help people that need it as long as they are willing to do what they can to improve themselves?

I read about a state (Minnesota?) that required those collecting assistance to report to "work" (everyday?) sorting widgets. Their productivity and attendance were measured and prospective employers looking for dependable workers that performed well with menial tasks could hire them straight from the program. The state benefits because the fully/ partially eliminate someone from assistance, the employer benefits because finding good, productive dependable workers for mind numbingly boring tasks is harder than one might think. That's about what I can remember from the program, the rest is me....

Now for those with the aptitude or desire should be offered greater potential with the opportunity to obtain greater levels of training, those that fail simply fall into the systems bottom tier, widget sorting. Seems like the system will have created a path to success and an incentive to find real work. since those in the system have to work anyway, it seems there would be a real incentive to get a real job doing something you wanted with the opportunity to make more money.

Another potential benefit of a system like this is that by providing free childcare while the parents worked a program is that it's the perfect opportunity to feed, educate and determine the health of the participants children.

The bottom line is how do we create a system of incentives that makes moving from one economic group to another (the definition of the American dream) as easy as possible.

 

[head of joaquin]

Re: Hunger Makes Pple Work Harder, and Other Stupid Things We Used to Believe Abt Pov

There are 47 million people on food stamps, only 4.3 million are on welfare.

About 4 million of them being children, average age 8. It can't be emphasized enough in rebutting the rightwing noise machine "welfare queen" fabrication.

 

[csbrown28]

Re: Hunger Makes Pple Work Harder, and Other Stupid Things We Used to Believe Abt Pov

There is little to do with folks that drop out of HS, which is free and includes free meals now. If public assistance provides more income than working an entry level full-time job then it is a no brainer to go that route (even if it means having a child) instead. Many people look at the cash benefits of a single program, e.g. TANF, and assume that is the sum total of benefits offered - yet forget that qualifying for one "safety net" program usually includes qualification for many more (of the 18 such "low income" family assistance programs.

I have no problem in engaging in conversation with you, but you're continually trivializing my answers into statements that evade the questions I ask, wreaks of you making the statements to convince yourself that your opinions are valuable rather than convincing me that your opinions are true.

You seem focused on determining the cost of these programs and making assumptions about peoples motivations.

While it's true that some are motivated the way you assert, I think you're wrong about the majority, and I think that assistance programs can provide more benefit than the costs they incur, but if you focus soley on the cost you become blind to and potential benefit and end up consumed by resentment.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Hunger Makes Pple Work Harder, and Other Stupid Things We Used to Believe Abt Pov

I have no problem in engaging in conversation with you, but you're continually trivializing my answers into statements that evade the questions I ask, wreaks of you making the statements to convince yourself that your opinions are valuable rather than convincing me that your opinions are true.

You seem focused on determining the cost of these programs and making assumptions about peoples motivations.

While it's true that some are motivated the way you assert, I think you're wrong about the majority, and I think that assistance programs can provide more benefit than the costs they incur, but if you focus soley on the cost you become blind to and potential benefit and end up consumed by resentment.

We seem to be in general agreement that help should be targetted to that which removes the need for such help as quickly as possible, and that is linked to (and dependent upon following) a realistic "self improvement" plan. My primary objection to most current "safety net" programs is that step one, for qualification for that help, is to have a dependent child and not to at least finish HS to qualify.

 

[csbrown28]

Re: Hunger Makes Pple Work Harder, and Other Stupid Things We Used to Believe Abt Pov

We seem to be in general agreement that help should be targetted to that which removes the need for such help as quickly as possible, and that is linked to (and dependent upon following) a realistic "self improvement" plan. My primary objection to most current "safety net" programs is that step one, for qualification for that help, is to have a dependent child and not to at least finish HS to qualify.

Removing the need for assistance would be a secondary goal. The primary goal of a system of welfare should be, imo, to provide the greatest opportunity possible in order to leverage the potential intellectual capability of each member of society.

Keep in mind, that if you invest in a system like this, that even if a majority were considered failures, that the the minority that succeed could pay for the program in the form of taxes, their productivity and/ or ideas.

If just one out of 100,000 welfare beneficiaries becomes a successful entrepreneur and creates a mid sized company that creates jobs, all of which would not have existed if the opportunity had not been given, the financial ramifications are enormous relative the the costs of the welfare program. It seems to me that when thinking about human capital in this manner, paying for welfare moms to raise their children may actually be a good investment. For myself, I'm in the top quintile of wage earners having grown up with a mom on welfare. Can it be said that my success is entirely do to welfare, of course not, but I think it was a contributor.

The problem I see is that children are not thought of as potential sources of intellectual capital, but purely as expenses that must be cared for by the so called nanny state.

Countries like India and China each have 4 times the people that the US has. If their citizens are 1/2 as productive as ours, their economies will be 2 times the size of ours. As a nation we must understand that investing in our people is the only way we will be able to compete in the global economy....

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: Hunger Makes Pple Work Harder, and Other Stupid Things We Used to Believe Abt Pov

Removing the need for assistance would be a secondary goal. The primary goal of a system of welfare should be, imo, to provide the greatest opportunity possible in order to leverage the potential intellectual capability of each member of society.

Keep in mind, that if you invest in a system like this, that even if a majority were considered failures, that the the minority that succeed could pay for the program in the form of taxes, their productivity and/ or ideas.

If just one out of 100,000 welfare beneficiaries becomes a successful entrepreneur and creates a mid sized company that creates jobs, all of which would not have existed if the opportunity had not been given, the financial ramifications are enormous relative the the costs of the welfare program. It seems to me that when thinking about human capital in this manner, paying for welfare moms to raise their children may actually be a good investment. For myself, I'm in the top quintile of wage earners having grown up with a mom on welfare. Can it be said that my success is entirely do to welfare, of course not, but I think it was a contributor.

The problem I see is that children are not thought of as potential sources of intellectual capital, but purely as expenses that must be cared for by the so called nanny state.

Countries like India and China each have 4 times the people that the US has. If their citizens are 1/2 as productive as ours, their economies will be 2 times the size of ours. As a nation we must understand that investing in our people is the only way we will be able to compete in the global economy....

You seriously see no difference in a child born to two responsible adult parents, raised in a stable home and one born to a HS drop-out single teen mother? They may be created equal but, trust me on this - they will not be so within 3-4 years. Taxing wages to support out of wedlock childbirth is not the recipe for success, even if you accept a 100,000:1 ratio as "success". You sound a lot like a slot machine/scratch-off ticket junkie - that next pull/scratch just might hit the jackpot yet, after 20 years of experience, they are still behind on their gambling win/loss ratio.