What should be done with welfare mothers?

_

cincybearcat wrote:

What do you do with a welfare parent that is abusing the system though? That is already on welfare and has more children? That uses foodstamps to pay for twinkies and then the cash in their pocket to buy the cigarettes and booze? Not that this is anyway the majority, but it does happen. So, what do you do? DO you turn a blind eye and say, well the $ is for the kids we can't hold them accountable?

If you are accepting $ from the government I believe specific, stringent rules must be followed or else you lose your benefits.

I think the root of this question really gets back to people's assumptions about abuse of the system, and I think that's the first problem to address. How do we define abuse of the system and how do we really know who's abusing it? I think most accusations of abuse are based on assumptions and judegements, which I believe is completely inappropriate & disrespectful.

If you define abuse of the system as having more children once you're in the system, that brings up a whole can of worms about values and resources, etc. Regarding resources, the U.S. has one of the highest unintended pregnancy rates in the developed world (50%), with poor women having a much higher rate than wealthier women - and the disparity is increasing. This is because poor women don't have good enough access to affordable, reliable birth control. So if you think poor women having children is a problem, then I think you have to work to address this issue.

And if a woman receives food stamps to buy her children food and you see her one day use them to buy Twinkies and you have a problem with that, I think that's another issue or perception & values, first and foremost. Are you suggesting that poor kids should never get to eat Twinkies like their wealthier counterparts?

So, basically, I think our self-righteous, judgemental, assumptions are the main problem. Maybe we should look inward before pointing fingers.

Again, that's not to say that abuse doesn't happen. Abuse happens in every system. I believe is specific, stringent rules, but I also don't think we should punish the children for the faults of the parents. What kind of rules do you suggest and, more importantly, how do you suggest we enforce them without compromising the welfare of the children?

cincybearcat

scb wrote:

What kind of rules do you suggest and, more importantly, how do you suggest we enforce them without compromising the welfare of the children?

Not sure, that's why I was picking your brain. It's tough to do what really should be done, because of the potential effect on the children. Of course, if you look at the system today and you see how many children that are raised in welfare families end up on assistance their entire lives, it's pretty easy to see that whatever is happening now is not working and the system in enabling.

_

cincybearcat wrote:

scb wrote:

What kind of rules do you suggest and, more importantly, how do you suggest we enforce them without compromising the welfare of the children?

Not sure, that's why I was picking your brain. It's tough to do what really should be done, because of the potential effect on the children. Of course, if you look at the system today and you see how many children that are raised in welfare families end up on assistance their entire lives, it's pretty easy to see that whatever is happening now is not working and the system in enabling.

Okay, well let's think specifically about what behaviors we want to prevent. If we want to prevent people from buying Twinkies with food stamps, we could probably make rules about what kinds of foods food stamps can be used for. Or we could provide the food itself, instead of just the money to buy the food (though that would likely get complicated).

blackredyellow

scb wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

scb wrote:

What kind of rules do you suggest and, more importantly, how do you suggest we enforce them without compromising the welfare of the children?

Not sure, that's why I was picking your brain. It's tough to do what really should be done, because of the potential effect on the children. Of course, if you look at the system today and you see how many children that are raised in welfare families end up on assistance their entire lives, it's pretty easy to see that whatever is happening now is not working and the system in enabling.

Okay, well let's think specifically about what behaviors we want to prevent. If we want to prevent people from buying Twinkies with food stamps, we could probably make rules about what kinds of foods food stamps can be used for. Or we could provide the food itself, instead of just the money to buy the food (though that would likely get complicated).

What if what you want to prevent is someone who clearly cannot financially support the children that they have (and are on public assistance), having more children. Or if you want to prevent someone using welfare money for LCD TV's and rims while their children are running down the street in the cold with ripped clothes and not wearing shoes?

In the end, you can put as many restrictions and safeguards on any system that you want, but it still comes back to the individual people.

I know some people who are on some form of public assistance, who do try, and do work hard, but because of some poor choices in the past (and present) or whatever, they can't seem to get it together for long enough periods of time.

But a lot of the people who I know (including some family), and people who I deal with (granted, I don't know the whole story with some of them), there just seems to be an amazing lack of motivation to better themselves and just rely on public assistance. Along with that, is the seeming lack of life planning or consequences to their actions... they know that public assistance is there, and seemingly always will be.

You can talk about accessibility of conception, and education, but a lot of people just don't seem to have any desire or care to act responsibly. Even look at public housing... A friend of mine is a public housing cop in Pittsburgh, and you should hear some of his horror stories... people get apartments and housing for free or next to nothing, and don't take care of them.

You made a good point about making assumptions, but it's easy to get angry when you see people who seemingly have many of the material possessions that we have, but we are the ones working long hours and making sacrifices, and they are just getting a check every month for doing nothing.

concertaholicshirt

"What should be done with welfare mothers?" Whewwwwww.... that's way above my paygrade. I've been raised by one, albeit we were only on for a couple of years and she fought and clawed to never go back. I will always be grateful that the safety net was there. I've been to the slums of India and elsewhere, and no one should have to live like that. However, I've also lived next to parents (it ain't just moms) who should have had their children taken away for emotional abuse and what I'll call Civic Abuse... people who should have been left to elements as they were just thoroughly reprehensible life forms. I've stood in line at the bodega to get my morning coffee and roll and watch the three people ahead of my buying their first beers of the day and, while they pay cash, I see their welfare cards in their wallets. I certainly feel for those addicts, but it's hard not to get fed up feeling like a chump on the way to the office to make some more money to pay taxes so they have a few $ to buy that beer. I certainly wanted a morning beer, so why not quit and sign up for benefits myself? I jest, but....

I'm all for a safety net, especially when children are involved, but at some point one has to start to wonder if the children aren't worse off staying with these parents instead of being put somewhere else. Again... I don't have the answer, and the problem is that, things being what they are, the system has to provide a one-size fits all solution for situations of many sizes, so it's better to err on the side of humanitarianism, even if I'm a chump far more often than I'd like. That said, don't tell me that I'm not compassionate when I say that I want to yank out the benefits and children from some able-bodied lush who's too freakin' lazy to get a job. Don't tell me I have to "understand" their plight. Screw that... it's best to have sympathy, but if I could figure out how to cherrypick them out, damn straight I would. I've no problems with my tax dollars paying for addiction treatment, but until they're ready for that, let them hit their bottom on their dime instead of mine. Same with sober lazy folks. I'm not a huge fan of going to the office everyday, but that's life. Suck it up and stop taking my $ because washing dishes or mowing lawns isn't their preferred career.

So, I see both sides, and have no viable answer. However, if someone wants to give me a gov't grant of a million $ or so, I'll get right on it :P

brandon10

I'm not saying we should stop anyone from having children. But I think it's pretty funny that a person needs a license to drive or even fish while anyone can have a baby. :?

KDH12

Wow there is too much to comment on here but first

the term "Welfare mother" should be taken out of our lexicon, it is a term from the 80's and 90's. Welfare does not exist anymore. Most of us should be old enough to remember our favorite president's concession to the Republicans in the form of welfare reform.

I am a social worker and I have worked in some of Chicago's worst communities including Cabrini Green and others. I could count on one hand the number of mothers that received cash assistance (I do not consider food to be welfare).

If they receive SSI (disability for someone that does not have enough work credits for SSDI) they get approved by your state as someone that has a debilitating illness either physical or mental. It is not easy to get approved and many who should be are not. You should be mad at your state not the individual. Additional right now the monthly pay out for SSI is about $637/month (in Illinois) try to rent an apartment and live on that amount.

On a side note... how is that when a banker cheats the system we give them a slap on the wrist and more of our money but when a poor person cheats the system we cry foul, want to cut them off and point out all their flaws and shortcomings.

The issue of poverty goes much deeper then someone having nice clothes, what they eat and who they fuck. Poverty has become a culture in our society that breeds more poverty. People are reduced to learning how to survive by any means necessary. But they are not the culprits they are the victims. Additionally and I know this will make some mad but urban poverty is rooted in racism. Most low income communities be it public housing or other were developed during the height of racial tension in this country. It speaks to a larger problem of our society not an individual. The woman in the article was probably only repeating behaviors that she learned form her mother and grandmother.

Lastly as others have said not judging is key. When I was in middle school I lived mostly with my divorced single struggling mother. We lived on foodstamps and struggled month to month for essentials like light, phones and transportation. I went to a nice private school that my father paid for. I will never forget when one of my teachers got on her soapbox in middle of class and starting "hating" on people in line at the grocery store buying junk food with their stamps. The teacher did not know that I was being raised on foodstamps and yes sometimes we bought pop and lucky charms. I will never forget the judgment that this teach in a "catholic school" put on others. BTW they do put restrictions on what you can buy with stamps.... only food, no toilet paper no household items. You can only get uncooked food... no deli items, no rotisserie chickens. And I am willing to bet that no "poor person" is buying brand name lucking charms, they are getting the bulk size in the bag.

KDH12

concertaholicshirt wrote:

"What should be done with welfare mothers?" Whewwwwww.... that's way above my paygrade. I've been raised by one, albeit we were only on for a couple of years and she fought and clawed to never go back. I will always be grateful that the safety net was there. I've been to the slums of India and elsewhere, and no one should have to live like that. However, I've also lived next to parents (it ain't just moms) who should have had their children taken away for emotional abuse and what I'll call Civic Abuse... people who should have been left to elements as they were just thoroughly reprehensible life forms. I've stood in line at the bodega to get my morning coffee and roll and watch the three people ahead of my buying their first beers of the day and, while they pay cash, I see their welfare cards in their wallets. I certainly feel for those addicts, but it's hard not to get fed up feeling like a chump on the way to the office to make some more money to pay taxes so they have a few $ to buy that beer. I certainly wanted a morning beer, so why not quit and sign up for benefits myself? I jest, but....

I'm all for a safety net, especially when children are involved, but at some point one has to start to wonder if the children aren't worse off staying with these parents instead of being put somewhere else. Again... I don't have the answer, and the problem is that, things being what they are, the system has to provide a one-size fits all solution for situations of many sizes, so it's better to err on the side of humanitarianism, even if I'm a chump far more often than I'd like. That said, don't tell me that I'm not compassionate when I say that I want to yank out the benefits and children from some able-bodied lush who's too freakin' lazy to get a job. Don't tell me I have to "understand" their plight. Screw that... it's best to have sympathy, but if I could figure out how to cherrypick them out, damn straight I would. I've no problems with my tax dollars paying for addiction treatment, but until they're ready for that, let them hit their bottom on their dime instead of mine. Same with sober lazy folks. I'm not a huge fan of going to the office everyday, but that's life. Suck it up and stop taking my $ because washing dishes or mowing lawns isn't their preferred career.

So, I see both sides, and have no viable answer. However, if someone wants to give me a gov't grant of a million $ or so, I'll get right on it :P

BTW it is a lot cheaper to give someone a few bucks for beer then have him go to a store to steal... which he will do if he is an alcoholic. The cost on him going to jail and through the criminal justice system is far greater then the beer money.

KDH12

cincybearcat wrote:

scb wrote:

What kind of rules do you suggest and, more importantly, how do you suggest we enforce them without compromising the welfare of the children?

Not sure, that's why I was picking your brain. It's tough to do what really should be done, because of the potential effect on the children. Of course, if you look at the system today and you see how many children that are raised in welfare families end up on assistance their entire lives, it's pretty easy to see that whatever is happening now is not working and the system in enabling.

false there is a 60 month lifetime cap on cash assistance per household... that means if a mother and her two teenage mothering children all get cash assistance that means 1 month equals 3 and the 60 months will pass fast.

KDH12

blackredyellow wrote:

scb wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Not sure, that's why I was picking your brain. It's tough to do what really should be done, because of the potential effect on the children. Of course, if you look at the system today and you see how many children that are raised in welfare families end up on assistance their entire lives, it's pretty easy to see that whatever is happening now is not working and the system in enabling.

Okay, well let's think specifically about what behaviors we want to prevent. If we want to prevent people from buying Twinkies with food stamps, we could probably make rules about what kinds of foods food stamps can be used for. Or we could provide the food itself, instead of just the money to buy the food (though that would likely get complicated).

What if what you want to prevent is someone who clearly cannot financially support the children that they have (and are on public assistance), having more children. Or if you want to prevent someone using welfare money for LCD TV's and rims while their children are running down the street in the cold with ripped clothes and not wearing shoes?

In the end, you can put as many restrictions and safeguards on any system that you want, but it still comes back to the individual people.

I know some people who are on some form of public assistance, who do try, and do work hard, but because of some poor choices in the past (and present) or whatever, they can't seem to get it together for long enough periods of time.

But a lot of the people who I know (including some family), and people who I deal with (granted, I don't know the whole story with some of them), there just seems to be an amazing lack of motivation to better themselves and just rely on public assistance. Along with that, is the seeming lack of life planning or consequences to their actions... they know that public assistance is there, and seemingly always will be.

You can talk about accessibility of conception, and education, but a lot of people just don't seem to have any desire or care to act responsibly. Even look at public housing... A friend of mine is a public housing cop in Pittsburgh, and you should hear some of his horror stories... people get apartments and housing for free or next to nothing, and don't take care of them.

You made a good point about making assumptions, but it's easy to get angry when you see people who seemingly have many of the material possessions that we have, but we are the ones working long hours and making sacrifices, and they are just getting a check every month for doing nothing.

you are assuming that people in public housing living for free know how to take care of an apartment.....

it is sad but many people need to be taught home management. You probably learned it from watching your parents and doing your own chores, now what if your parents had not modeled that for you.......

Anon

Everyone on welfare should be subject to a drug test. Everyone on welfare should also be a US citizen.

KDH12

cincybearcat wrote:

scb wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

I was looking more for what services you believe need to be given and when do those services end.

I posted later about some of the services I think should be offered for the parents:

1. Affordable, accessible contraceptive medications, devices, & procedures for both women & men.
2. Comprehensive sex education for both girls & boys.
3. Programs that teach boys & girls refusal skills, communication skills, and how to have good self esteem.
4. Programs that teach parenting skills, to both women & men.
5. Policies that support parents in the workforce, such as requirements for maternity & paternity leave, requirements that women must have a safe, clean place to breastfeed or pump at work, etc.
6. Affordable, accessible, quality childcare for everyone.

As for Medicaid, food stamps, etc., I think we need to remember that those services are primarily for the children and I think children should have whatever services they need for as long as they need them.

What do you do with a welfare parent that is abusing the system though? That is already on welfare and has more children? That uses foodstamps to pay for twinkies and then the cash in their pocket to buy the cigarettes and booze? Not that this is anyway the majority, but it does happen. So, what do you do? DO you turn a blind eye and say, well the $ is for the kids we can't hold them accountable?

If you are accepting $ from the government I believe specific, stringent rules must be followed or else you lose your benefits.

Does the government tell you how to spend your stimulus check?

Anon

I didn't get one, so no.

cincybearcat

KDH12 wrote:

Does the government tell you how to spend your stimulus check?

You do realize that when the government "gave me $"...they were giving me back $ I PAID them in taxes...right? Surely you get that.

KDH12

cincybearcat wrote:

KDH12 wrote:

Does the government tell you how to spend your stimulus check?

You do realize that when the government "gave me $"...they were giving me back $ I PAID them in taxes...right? Surely you get that.

how do you know it was your money exactly they gave back, and it was money that you had given them, and a stimulus is different then a tax refund right? It was probably money that had been allocated for something else anyway so really it wasn't your money. Or maybe they gave me some of your money as well, so should they have told me how to spend your money.

In that case why don't you drive down to some poor persons house and tell them how to spend your money, why should the government do it? Cut out the middle man.

Anon

KDH12 wrote:

In that case why don't you drive down to some poor persons house and tell them how to spend your money,

Why start now? They have been doing it for years.

This country has become a welfare equal rights state. It punishes those that pay their taxes and succeed in life. Granted there are people who need assistance and I think there is a place for government to help. However the system is in dire need of an overhaul. People don't recite these stories of abuse out of some story hour myth. They view these abuses every day. It needs to stop.

I was personally dealt a losing card with this exact topic. I bought a home in a neighborhood that was supposed to be higher class. I saved and I worked to be able to do so. Yet somehow five houses on my street were Section 8. It is not stereotypical when people claim that the homes become run down and dilapidated. I have pictures and documents as proof. Equal housing is a sham, since when did government assistance go from putting a solid roof over someone's head to allowing them to live in housing that they can not obviously maintain even when someone else is footing the bill? Yet here they are letting the properties fall apart therefore causing the surrounding properties to decrease in value. The slumlord decides he doesn't want to fork out the money to fix the properties and they go into foreclosure. Now if I want to sell my house I have to compete against foreclosure houses $100k less in price than my own even though those places needed over $100k in repairs. After viewing the inside of one of these homes I cannot believe PEOPLE lived there instead of ANIMALS. But of course they don't care because they have no ownership.

Bottom line should be that welfare is temporary, is NOT a right, and should be more carefully policed. Recipients should be subject to drug tests and if they are found to be using drugs their benefits should stop. If they are able-bodied they should be doing something to contribute to the community, some type of service, not just sitting on their butts eating cheetos and playing on the Wii, and watching brainnumbing TV like MTV.

gimmesometruth27

JB811 wrote:

Everyone on welfare should be subject to a drug test. Everyone on welfare should also be a US citizen.

i knew you were going to say this....

Anon

Do you disagree with it?

Cosmo

What should be done with welfare mothers?
That's the question... hmmmm...
Well, I would say, 'Don't throw them all in one convenient bag just because we hear about some of them behaving badly'. Don't you remember... just a few short weeks ago, they were "Families in need" of our charity, in the giving spirit of Christmas. So soon they have become animals to be spayed and the offspring left to fend for themselves? Wow. And we define ourselves as a 'Christian Nation'?
I figure, even if there are some well fed, soul-less people who will take from the mouths of the truely hungry... it isn't worth punishing the ones who really need it because of the few who steal from us.
...
If you know of cheats... it is your duty to the American Taxpayer to report these criminals. If you don't, then aren't you are part of the problem?

TravisTheSky

There was a similar thread in AET a couple of days ago. Did everyone see it?

If not, jog over now!