The Dark Side of Welfare

[josephdavid]

“Society” is everyone. And if everyone is at fault, no one is at fault. You can’t hold society responsible – what higher earthly power would preside over the lawsuit?

But “society” created the self-perpetuating welfare system. And it’s a system that holds children hostage – we can’t change it, as bad as it is, because “it’s for the children.” Of course, it ruins many a child.

Others have discussed programs like Habitat for Humanity – where people work and gain home ownership. Now there’s a program that offers hope – not just another generation on welfare.

So lets just cancel welfare programs and let the children fend for themselves. That way the wealthy can keep their money.

Habitat for Humanity is a great program and shows that with proper management the program can work and the money will go to proper use.

But I keep getting impression here and from Congress is “eh, its not working so take away the money and cancel the program”

 

[vern_humphrey]

So lets just cancel welfare programs and let the children fend for themselves. That way the wealthy can keep their money.

It always elevates the level of discussion when you falsely misstate the other side’s position.

Habitat for Humanity is a great program and shows that with proper management the program can work and the money will go to proper use.

And Habitat for Humanity is not a government program.

But I keep getting impression here and from Congress is “eh, its not working so take away the money and cancel the program”

As opposed to, “Ah, it’s not working. In fact it’s hurting the people it was supposed to help. So let’s throw money at it.”

 

[josephdavid]

It always elevates the level of discussion when you falsely misstate the other side’s position.

Let me comment on what I meant so you do not get impression I am falsely accousing some one. Many in America are getting impressions that Congress and the President favor the wealthy more than the poor. By the tax cuts that clearly favor the poor and the faulty prescription drug program that benifits the pharma co’s, etc.

And Habitat for Humanity is not

 

[vern_humphrey]

Let me comment on what I meant so you do not get impression I am falsely accousing some one. Many in America are getting impressions that Congress and the President favor the wealthy more than the poor. By the tax cuts that clearly favor the poor and the faulty prescription drug program that benifits the pharma co’s, etc.

The Prescription Drug program benefits many elderly – my wife works with the elderly, remember?

The tax cuts do not favor the wealthy – the upper brackets pay a higher percentage of the total revenue now than before the tax cuts. The lowest tax bracket was cut from 15% to 10% – a 50% cut! The “wealthy” didn’t get anyting like that.

Well aware of that thank you. But why cant the government do that?

Because:

1. It’s true Social Justice – it aims at lifting people out of poverty.
2. It doesn’t hold the recipients captive – it makes them independent.
3. It doesn’t offer jobs for hordes of bureaucrats.
4. It’s efficient.

So why not fix it. I see the Republican accusing the Democrats have no plan for Iraq (partially true for the majority in Congress) but to me I see the Republicans have no plan for domestic issues.

Ah, have you been reading this and other threads? There are plenty of alternative plans discussed – but like Habitat for Humanity, they would be efficient and would make the poor independant. Can’t have that!!

 

[RMH]

I am some one as a child lived on welfare. I do not believe my mother was the one who decided my father leave the house to go prancing around on expensive trips while we lived on welfare and at one time in a garage. I do not believe my mother enjoyed working two jobs to just to keep the lights on and a roof over our head.

Does anyone believe a child chooses to live in poverty and ask for government assistance?

Perhaps it is too simplistic to just blame the welfare system, when it is society living selfishly. Welfare did not create the problems society created the problems, welfare was created to help the victims (i.e. the children) of a selfish society living in reletivism. So I ask do we punish the children for their parents mistakes?

I too was trapped in the welfare system for awhile.I know what it is like to be on welfare… It was hard to get out of it once we were in the system… we eventually managed to get free of it … I think victims like your mom should have been given enough support so that she only had to work one job while she had kids in her care… Women who have been abandoned, or abused and need help should get it … What has been done in the past is not helping families with fathers in low paying jobs so the dads leave inorder that their families can get help. I think those families should have been given support with the dad still in the house. In these cases the welfare system made victims of the children by depriving them of a two parent family.

 

[vern_humphrey]

What has been done in the past is not helping families with fathers in low paying jobs so the dads leave inorder that their families can get help. I think those families should have been given support with the dad still in the house. In these cases the welfare system made victims of the children by depriving them of a two parent family.

In fact, men have been virtually relieved of responsibility for their families. In some sectors of society, having a baby is a rite-of-passage and a strategy for making a living. Out of wedlock births now make up more than one third of all births in this country.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

Indolence is a great sin. To live an entire life in that way is not pleasing to God.

 

[anniemart]

Vern Humphrey,

With all due respect, your point of view is consistent and I’m afraid to point out the obvious (unconsidered factor?) to you because it may just knock you out of your chair…

Not every “welfare program” is the same…it is unfair to clump all the states into one big generality…here’s something you may genuinely be unaware of…there are now time limits in place on public assistance benefits…our elected officials listened to us!..there were changes made in 2000. The cycles of families on public assistance are being destroyed…this is good news Vern!

As far as forcing out men from families so that they could continue to collect the once, unlimited benefits, you surely must see the bad logic behind that one…it was assumed that if you had an intact family then the head of the household, the male, should surely have the ability to become employed. However, it was shown not to be the case…much harder for him to get a job than we all thought…what was a mother left to do then if not find a way to collect those benefits…besides, do you really think that most of these families didn’t continue to have the male head of household reside with them?

Far too much outdated information and stats…things have changed for the better…or is your state perhaps one of the most statistically impoverished in the union?..if that’s the case then the **real problem **lies with your elected representatives…

Now, what exactly does your state public assistance program offer to potential applicants today, at this very moment? What does your public assistance program offer to unemployed single and two parent families who want nothing more than to not be singled out? what ressources are in place to help them become like you…successful and happy in countless ways?

Oh, and please don’t pick apart my post sentence by sentence…it’s really isn’t a good debate tactic with the issue at hand and the overall well intended message slides by ignored…not picking a fight, so please be nice like I’ve read you to be in your previous postings. Thank you kindly .

God Bless the child in need of love, laughter, food and shelter but especially the Word.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern Humphrey,

With all due respect, your point of view is consistent and I’m afraid to point out the obvious (unconsidered factor?) to you because it may just knock you out of your chair…
I doubt it.
anniemart;2519023:

Not every “welfare program” is the same…it is unfair to clump all the states into one big generality…here’s something you may genuinely be unaware of…there are now time limits in place on public assistance benefits…our elected officials listened to us!..there were changes made in 2000. The cycles of families on public assistance are being destroyed…this is good news Vern!

Yes, it is a small step.

Now, where are the programs to take people who have never worked and make them capable of supporting themselves?

As far as forcing out men from families so that they could continue to collect the once, unlimited benefits, you surely must see the bad logic behind that one…it was assumed that if you had an intact family then the head of the household, the male, should surely have the ability to become employed. However, it was shown not to be the case…much harder for him to get a job than we all thought…what was a mother left to do then if not find a way to collect those benefits…

“Much harder for him to get a job than we all thought?” Who is we?

The impact of this was apparent within months – and yet the policy persisted for more than a generation.

.besides, do you really think that most of these families didn’t continue to have the male head of household reside with them?

Actually, the pattern is for males to move in and out – hardly a stable family!!

Far too much outdated information and stats…things have changed for the better…or is your state perhaps one of the most statistically impoverished in the union?..if that’s the case then the **real problem **

lies with your elected representatives…
Are you telling me that less than a third of all babies are born out of wedlock these days? That the high school dropout rate is substantially less than 28- 30%? That the poverty rate is dropping dramatically these days?

You have cites to show all that?

Now, what exactly does your state public assistance program offer to potential applicants today, at this very moment? What does your public assistance program offer to unemployed single and two parent families who want nothing more than to not be singled out

? what ressources are in place to help them become like you…successful and happy in countless ways?
It’s the same-old, same-old. My wife does more with her mentoring than the starte – in this town, at any rate.

Oh, and please don’t pick apart my post sentence by sentence…it’s really isn’t a good debate tactic with the issue at hand and the overall well intended message slides by ignored…not picking a fight, so please be nice like I’ve read you to be in your previous postings. Thank you kindly .

Really? You are not responsible for what you post?

[God Bless the child in need of love, laughter, food and shelter but especially the Word.

And God save that child from the public assistance programs we have in this country

 

[josephdavid]

IWhat has been done in the past is not helping families with fathers in low paying jobs so the dads leave inorder that their families can get help. I think those families should have been given support with the dad still in the house. In these cases the welfare system made victims of the children by depriving them of a two parent family.

I never said it was the end all solution. Again it is a solution to make sure families have food to eat and roof over their head while they try to get back on their feet. This is where welfare needs revamping job training, daycare assistance.

Also men need to take more responsibility. What is the percentage where the woman kicks the man out of the house? Mostly there is a good reason.

Educate me where and how does the welfare system say that the man has no part in the family?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I never said it was the end all solution. Again it is a solution to make sure families have food to eat and roof over their head while they try to get back on their feet. This is where welfare needs revamping job training, daycare assistance.

Actually, it’s a “solution” that locks people in poverty for generations. It’s a “solution” that stopped the drop in poverty that was going on when the Great Society was implemented. It’s a “solution” that broke up and destroyed families.

Also men need to take more responsibility.

But our “solution” not only relieved them from responsibility, it made it more profitable for them not to take responsibility.

What is the percentage where the woman kicks the man out of the house? Mostly there is a good reason.

Right – let’s blame the victims!

Educate me where and how does the welfare system say that the man has no part in the family?

Where it supports families with no man – and where it would not support families with a man.

 

[josephdavid]

Actually, it’s a “solution” that locks people in poverty for generations. It’s a “solution” that stopped the drop in poverty that was going on when the Great Society was implemented. It’s a “solution” that broke up and destroyed families.

But our “solution” not only relieved them from responsibility, it made it more profitable for them not to take responsibility.

Right – let’s blame the victims!

Where it supports families with no man – and where it would not support families with a man.

Can you show me studies that confirm your point of view?

One way I have always looked at being charitable both privately and through the government and you can relate to this like I can and that is: “Your unit is only as strong as the weakest link” and it is the entire unit’s responsiblity to shore up that weakest link.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Can you show me studies that confirm your point of view?

Do you actually claim that single parent families didn’t increase after the Great Society!!

Are you saying that the poverty rate – dropping like a stone in the 1950s – has continued to drop?

Are you saying we don’t have an out-of-wedlock birth rate over 33%

Do you want a study to show the sun comes up in the east?

One way I have always looked at being charitable both privately and through the government and you can relate to this like I can and that is: “Your unit is only as strong as the weakest link” and it is the entire unit’s responsiblity to shore up that weakest link.

And, given the increase in single-parent families, the sudden stop in the decrease in poverty, the increase in out-of-wedlock births and all the other social ills plaguing this country – we have failed to do that.

 

[boppaid]

Right – let’s blame the victims!

You always equate the man as a victim, I noticed. I’m not sure if you were wronged somehow, and that colors your perspective (in which case I’m sorry.) However, we must remember who the real victims are…the children.

 

[boppaid]

I know that the reasons for your statistics are not as cut and dry as you would like to think they are. Why is the divorce rate higher now? Many times it’s because women no longer live in an emotionally or physically abusive marriage. Divorce is more acceptable now, so many women who would have lived in an unhealthy environment (both for her and her children) have the “guts” if you will to leave now. Bravo!

Of course, many still divorce because “I’m not in wuv now!”, which is terrible. Still, many do divorce for good reasons. I’m glad that people aren’t in terrible and unhappy marriages, raising children with an unhealthy view of marriage. I wish that more states would require some sort of marriage counseling PRIOR to issuing marriage licenses, as I believe that would help lower the divorce rate.

 

[josephdavid]

Do you actually claim that single parent families didn’t increase after the Great Society!!

Are you saying that the poverty rate – dropping like a stone in the 1950s – has continued to drop?

Are you saying we don’t have an out-of-wedlock birth rate over 33%

Do you want a study to show the sun comes up in the east?

And, given the increase in single-parent families, the sudden stop in the decrease in poverty, the increase in out-of-wedlock births and all the other social ills plaguing this country – we have failed to do that.

But how does welfare system cause this? Is there rules with in the welfare system that encourages single motherhood?

If you look at statistics in the 90’s poverty rates were declining. Perhaps during the 90’s we had a government that worked.

 

[boppaid]

If you look at statistics in the 90’s poverty rates were declining. Perhaps during the 90’s we had a government that worked.

That’s exactly what I was going to post! Very true.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Let’s start here:

kidscount.org/sld/compare_results.jsp?i=722

Non-Hispanic White 23%
Black or African American 65%
American Indian 49%
Asian and Pacific Islander 17%
Hispanic or Latino 36%

Total 32%

Note which groups have the highest proportion of single parent families.

And then we can go here:
breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8LHMFDO0&show_article=1

37 Percent of U.S. Births Out of Wedlock

Nov 21 04:54 PM US/Eastern
By MIKE STOBBE
AP Medical Writer

ATLANTA (AP) - Out-of-wedlock births in the United States have climbed to an all-time high, accounting for nearly four in 10 babies born last year, government health officials said Tuesday.
While out-of-wedlock births have long been associated with teen mothers, the teen birth rate actually dropped last year to the lowest level on record. Instead, births among unwed mothers rose most dramatically among women in their 20s.

The overall rise reflects the burgeoning number of people who are putting off marriage or living together without getting married.

The increase in births to unwed mothers was seen in all racial groups, but rose most sharply among Hispanics. It was up among all age groups except youngsters ages 10 to 17.

“A lot of people think of teenagers and unmarried mothers synonymously, but they are not driving this,” said Stephanie Ventura of the National Center for Health Statistics, a co-author of the report

From: manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_baeo.htm

The report’s main findings are the following:

The national graduation rate for the class of 1998 was 71%. For white students the rate was 78%, while it was 56% for African-American students and 54% for Latino students.

From the Census Bureau cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=8296838364357&lang=en-US&mkt=en-US&FORM=CVRE

(Reconstructed table)
Year Percent in Poverty
2005 17.6
2000 16.2
1995 20.8
1990 20.6
1985 20.7
1980 18.3
1975 17.1
1970 15.1*
1965 21.0*
1960 26.9*

• years before the Great Society fully took effect.

 

[vern_humphrey]

If you look at statistics in the 90’s poverty rates were declining. .

Not according to the Census Bureau.

 

[josephdavid]

Reconstructed table)
Year Percent in Poverty
2005 17.6
2000 16.2
1995 20.8
1990 20.6
1985 20.7
1980 18.3
1975 17.1
1970 15.1*
1965 21.0*
1960 26.9*

I will fill in the years you left out:

1999 17.1
1998 18.9
1997 19.9
1996 20.5

Also you find that in 60’s before Johnson and Congress passed sweeping anti-poverty laws it was in the mid 20’s in the 70’s it was well under 20 percentile and in the 80’s it climbed into the 20’s and then started back down in the 90’s and starting to inch back up fortunately at a slower rate after 2001.