Romney: Welfare Moms Need 'Dignity of Work'

  • Thread starter Thread starter Birdpreacher
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yet he felt he could judge the person handing out the aid?

There’s a single word that accurately describes that…
👍

As I previously stated, if I want to give out money, I am free to set conditions on how to do it.

My employer pays me if I come to work on time and finish my work.

The government is free to set the rules on who is poor and needs public assistance.
 
Agreed, so don’t pretend you know me.
“You and people like you” are people who don’t care that the way means testing was absolutely humiliating.
Perhaps he should have held a grudge against those that made means testing necessary. But I see you didn’t think that far – you claim means testing was done simply to humiliate the people . I guess it never occurred to you that it was done to ensure those that actually needed the aid got it instead of frittering it away on those that looked at it as an extra source of income while the truly needy did without.
Yes, because a story about a Michigan lottery winner charged with welfare fraud has anything at all to do with a family on relief in the New York metropolitan area during the Great Depression.

Perhaps the means test could have been conducted in a way that didn’t try to further humiliate the poor.
 
Yet he felt he could judge the person handing out the aid?

There’s a single word that accurately describes that…
Do you realize how frustrating a person you are to discuss things with? You take an entire post that lays out an entire story and talks about several different things at once and then snip it down to one sentence in order to call my grandfather a hypocrite. You ignored the fact that the Catholic Church’s aid was not given in the same way, and provokes different feelings.

Of course, there is the essential difference that my grandfather’s feelings were expressed to our family; he was never in a position of power over the means-test people. When he was in a position of power over people, he did not use that position of power to try and humiliate them. My grandfather’s feelings did nothing to anyone; the means-testers’ actions directly contributed to adding unpleasantness to the life of a poor, hard-working woman. That’s a crucial difference.
 
Yes, because a story about a Michigan lottery winner charged with welfare fraud has anything at all to do with a family on relief in the New York metropolitan area during the Great Depression.
It shows just how far people will go to abuse a system designed to help the truly needy. I’m sorry for not providing an article from the 1930s - this internet thingy was around then.
 
👍

As I previously stated, if I want to give out money, I am free to set conditions on how to do it.

My employer pays me if I come to work on time and finish my work.

The government is free to set the rules on who is poor and needs public assistance.
What benefit was there to setting up the means-test in a way that humiliated its recipients? The government (and any other aid organization) is legally free to do things the way the want. However, that does not exempt them from doing things the way they morally ought to do them; aiding the poor is a Christian duty, and it isn’t meant to be done grudgingly or insultingly.
 
Actually it is nowhere near “most”. Of all the single mothers 23.5 percent of them received food stamps - the most common aid for single mothers…

assistanceforsinglemothers.com/food-assistance/
Thanks Sam. 👍

I would guess that some of those 23.5% are also working. On a personal note…

My sister-in-law is a working, single mom with 5 kids. She recently divorced her abusive husband. She is struggling tremendously and has decided to uproot from her current state and move in with her mom and find a job there. We’ve also offerred for all of them to move in with us - me, my wife, two adult children and 3 pre-pubescent kids. Prayers for all involved please…especially aging grandma who may be overwhelmed and my sister-in-law who recently returned to the Church and is trying to hold it together.
 
No one here wants to humiliate the poor, whatever that means 🤷
I had several posts saying what it means in this thread.

Anyway, there is at least one poster who is of the opinion that it isn’t very important to avoid humiliating the poor.
 
It shows just how far people will go to abuse a system designed to help the truly needy. I’m sorry for not providing an article from the 1930s - this internet thingy wasn’t around then.
Sure. Al Gore wasn’t even born yet! 😃
 
I had several posts saying what it means in this thread.

Anyway, there is at least one poster who is of the opinion that it isn’t very important to avoid humiliating the poor.
Humility is a lesson I learned very young - it sad some wait so long in life to learn it.
 
Humility is a lesson I learned very young - it sad some wait so long in life to learn it.
I had to get “punched in the gut” (figuratively) a few times before I started to get it. I’m still working on it.
 
What benefit was there to setting up the means-test in a way that humiliated its recipients? The government (and any other aid organization) is legally free to do things the way the want. However, that does not exempt them from doing things the way they morally ought to do them; aiding the poor is a Christian duty, and it isn’t meant to be done grudgingly or insultingly.
How was he, or anyone else for that matter humiliated? Simply making a blanket claim about one data point does not make an argument.

And one can argue that no strings attached welfare for able bodied adults, without some long term plan to help them get off of said welfare isn’t aiding the poor, either.
 
I doubt anybody will agree with me on this. But here goes.

My paternal grandmother and my maternal grandfather were living when I was a child. My grandmother was a middle class widow and my grandfather was a farmer. My grandmother had a maid who came in every few days or so to clean, do laundry and such. Cleaning an old lady’s house is not exactly back-breaking work, and the lady could make her own hours pretty much. They ate meals together, with my grandmother providing the food. Often there was some for her the helper to take home. My grandmother was very big on baking, and would bake a lot more than she could eat by herself.

My grandfather hired men all the time; some long term some short term. It was definitely harder work, mostly outdoors, but he paid well.

My wife works and so do I. She’s tired when she gets home. I never am able to get around to all the things I need to do because I’m often gone.

Both of us would be more than glad to hire domestic help. But it’s really hard to do because you have to deal with withholding, workers’ comp insurance, unemployment insurance, etc. I also have a modest ranch and I do hire a fair amount of contract labor, but guess what? There is a new IRS rule that if I pay any one person more than $600/year, I have to get his SSN and file a 1099 on him. And forget about having a tenant/laborer. Massively troublesome unless you are really wealthy. Ask a “work for cash” person for his SSN and likely as not you’ll get a false number or never see him again. Soooo, despite the fact that I have work and am willing to pay well, it’s just easier for my grown son and me to do the work ourselves (and less than we would prefer) for the most part. Domestic and farm labor are affordable to a lot of people, but the hassle isn’t. It adds a great deal to the cost and trouble. Only the really well to do can afford such things.

What would be so terrible if the government excused potential employers for all of that for strictly domestic and farm work? What if the older lady could just pay the domestic at the end of the day or the week and that simply be that? Unemployed people aren’t paying taxes anyway. They aren’t paying social security, and their medical is taken care of by Medicaid.

And I would be willing to bet that the unemployed single mothers could get work as well in that kind of arrangement, possibly even without government paid daycare. I know lots of women who would take care of children for very little, but there’s the licensing and the withholding and the Medicare tax and the workers’ compensation and the unemployment compensation. On and on and on. And besides, a fair number of householders would put up with the domestic bringing a child or two along if they were reasonably well-behaved and had entertainments onsite to hold their attention.

And just maybe some older people would not have to go into special living arrangements quite so early if they could hire a maid and a handyman now and then and just pay them in cash. Old people even used to have live-in help. Quite ordinary old people. The live-ins got bed and board and pay.

Would it really be so terrible if the government told “welfare mothers” or whomever, that they could, or even had to, in the case of the physically able, earn cash as domestics without having to pay taxes on it and still access such additional benefits on a sliding scale, e.g., Medicaid? Would it be so awful if men or women could do farm work for cash without all the red tape, and still be covered for at least medical?

Finally, and maybe I’ll get deluged with objections to this. When I was a kid I picked strawberries for six cents a quart, and was glad to get it. Last spring I picked for my own family in a combined “pick your own” or “buy” place. Nice patch owned by a Mexican guy. He had two local kids (white) working there picking. Obviously local kids. One was probably 16, the other surely wasn’t. Those kids were getting $1.25/quart to pick, as I recall. The Mexican guy was selling them for $2.75 or $3.00/quart and could sell every one he had. Now, a kid who works hard at it can pick anywhere from 25 quarts/day up to about a maximum of 100 quarts. Those kids weren’t ragged or beat up looking. They were just enterprising kids who knew a good thing when they saw it.

But while the law allows the 16 year old to pick, it doesn’t allow the younger kid to pick. But what kind of sense does it make to keep, say, a 12 year old from making anywhere from $30 to $100 per day when he wants to do it? It’s only about three weeks/year. Yes, adults could do it instead, but most adults have jobs they have to go to and can’t just quit to do seasonal work. Besides, kids are better at it than adults are. They don’t get stiff and sore the way adults do who aren’t used to it. And consumers can get fresh sun-ripened strawberries right off the vine.

Oh well. Make the kids sit at home watching tv or playing video games or roam the street.

I know, I know. “Can’t be done”
 
They need to completely eliminate the income tax and replace it with a national sales tax (with a Congressional supermajority required to raise it after it has been in force for 3 years.).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top