New spin on the welfare debate.

[copperhead-1911]

FYI, it's a myth that women on welfare try to have children so they can have increased benefits. Not only due to tge math being very obvious, but also in tge fact that caps on children in other states haven't stopped welfare moms from continuing to have children.

It is fair to say not all women, but enough do breed to get more money. They find ways around state caps. They do have state caps for welfare, but some states have higher caps for food stamps and whatever state aid. I am all for helping people down on their luck, but people breeding to pick my pocket, especially illegal immigrants having 10 anchor babies and getting benefits for them, makes me sick. It should make any patriotic American sick. The only people who should not be sick of this are people who want their votes they know the cycle of poverty and want to make sure there is a permanent underclass to keep them in office with votes in exchange for the public m oney.

 

[copperhead-1911]

+1

This was the only poor relief program that ever worked. The C.C.C. and the W.P.A projects kept people from starving, preserved their personal honor and dignity, gave the taxpayers something of value, and automatically phased themselves out as the economy re energized.



My DOG has produced more "shovel ready" jobs than the current administration!

Good point. The problem is that giving people self esteem and working for something does not create people who would vote for Obama. Where would liberals get voters ( the small liberal rich elite?) without the losers?

 

[copperhead-1911]

Not as easy as it sounds. They're used to just getting fed by others. They aren't going to go and be productive, they'll just start taking from those who they see as having more than them. Ending welfare cold turkey would surely mean a massive spike in crime.

Paired with the second amendment would probably reduce the criminal element and liberal voting block. That right there is a reason for it. We all know most decent people who don't get their checks wont go to crime right away, so the "surplus population" would be the ones out rioting.

 

[copperhead-1911]

Well the .gov argues the consitution says "to provide for commom defense, promote the general welfare..." and gives them the power to run welfare programs.

I notice it says "promote" not "shall provide" general welfare.

Govt welfare never existed before the 30's, why would it so bad to end it?

our country has gotten much more "diverse" and much more immigrants legal an illegal and it used to be immigrants ( legal) had to provide for themselves. Look up demographic changes and you will notice that as well and I am not trying to put anyone down. I am simply stating something different from the 30s.

 

[Hoosier Gal]

OK, lets assume that's true (I can only go by what I was told). This is even more reason why implants are a good option. If as you say they get less per child then it proves that irresponsibility is causing the problem.

I don't think anyone can argue that a woman on welfare having more kids cost the taxpayers more money. Food stamps, school lunch, school books, after school programs, future welfare recipients....the list goes on.

Lets assume that 100 women on welfare have 3 children each while on welfare, that's 300 additional children on welfare. Now lets say that 50% of those kids go on welfare themselves, that's 150 . If each of them have 3 kids we are at 450. If again 50% (225) go on welfare and have 3 kids we are at 675.

This is in just 3 generations which can be as little as 60 years. We are already approaching the point where there are more people riding in the wagon that pulling it. If this level of reproduction holds anywhere close to accurate, I don't see how the system can survive.

This is not meant to be a scientific analysis but just to point out that every child born into welfare stands a good chance of staying there and adding exponentially to the problem.

It is a vicious cycle and unless they are willing to break it, it will continue generation to generation.

There are psychological and sociological reasons why women who cannot independently care for their children continue to do so.

My grandmother had 13 children - all a product of welfare. There were a few different fathers involved, but none who stood by my grandmother. Out of her children one or two broke the cycle. Out of her grandchildren, only three have broken the cycle - and most of her children produced at least 5 children each. So, the cycle continues.

Very telling of my background. But I've seen it from a different point of view.

 

[Hoosier Gal]

Some of these folks just seem feral. They look like human beings, and make speaking sounds, and apparently know how to use tools, but their decision-making processes and behaviors are alien. The prolific breeding without any family structure, and little thought to actually raising the kids, is the most bothersome, as this ensures social reproduction of the attendant problems of unemployment and crime.

Basically we have created a generation of people who lack the ability to plan past this day, and do everything on whim, with no thought to consequences. Many of them can't refrain from repeated criminal behavior, yet we expect them to somehow learn to acquire job skills and acquire good parenting practices?

Unintended consequences coming back to bite us. And the answer is more programs? Or a college education?

There is a lot of truth written here.

As for a college education, I know several welfare recipients who get college degrees, but then never get a job or become productive. They just sign up for more government grants for another degree in something else. Or use the funds for home improvements or vacations. I also know the flip side where people acquired a useless degree and are on welfare, but they just have decided that if they can't get their dream job, then they won't work anywhere. These aren't the breeders, but still mooching.

My dad worked very hard jobs, but never seemed to make ends meet. He raised us without our mother in the picture (a reversal of roles). He depended on the system at times. He had his own vices and maybe wasn't the best at budgeting. Plus he was too kind - Always giving things and money to people who in his mind were less fortunate. These same people are the ones who took advantage of his generosity.

I think there are times when people truly need help and the system should be set so that it provides just that, but it's an overused and abused system.

 

[copperhead-1911]

They would be no more "forced" than we are to say, submit to a breathalyzer or blood test when we accept a license from the state. We all have choices; some of them are harder than others but they are still our choice. Comparing this to China is absurd. There is no choice in China; you do what the state says or you die. That is forced.

I guess our definition of immoral and wrong are just different. I believe that taking public money and then continuing to have babies you cant support is immoral and wrong.

I know not all welfare moms are "welfare queens" and I understand that some decent women would have to make the choice between welfare and a procedure they may not want, but we can't just sit on our hands and do nothing. I also don't support just cutting people off and letting them starve either.

Welfare has its place. When I was 24 my wife and I had just had our first child. She had quit to stay home and raise our child because we believed that no one will raise your children like you will. I was the sole bread winner in the family which was OK because I made decent money. Then I was injured off the job and could not work for over three months. No workman's comp, and no disability in the trades back then.

To make a long story short, we had to go on food stamps until I got back to work. As soon as I was able, I returned to work and we got off the system. I believe this is what the system should be for. Short term help for hard working people who have had a run of bad luck.

Everyone out there who says "let them starve" has never had something happen to them and I am here to tell you that it can. At my current age and financial situation I could withstand 3 months, but at 24 with a new baby, and a wife that had just quit, we lived week to week.

Could not agree with you more. The way you and your wife handled it was how it was intended. They were there to help not be a way of life.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I was watching some show the other day about people living in the Great Depression. They were insulted at the very idea of accepting assistance from anyone... my how times have changed.

Very true. Even the ones who did make-work for the WPA took pride in not having received 'poor relief'.

 

[BogWalker]

I would be entirely fine with WPA and CCC programs starting back up. The US highway system is in pretty poor state I've been led to believe, that would be a fantastic way to reintroduce these programs. Didn't the WPA programs originally build much of the highway system?

 

[IndyDave1776]

I would be entirely fine with WPA and CCC programs starting back up. The US highway system is in pretty poor state I've been led to believe, that would be a fantastic way to reintroduce these programs. Didn't the WPA programs originally build much of the highway system?

Usually side projects. Highway construction is not something for the uninitiated unless you want significantly worse quality of workmanship than we already get. It is a big pet peeve with me since diligent management can eliminate most of that problem. It used to be that it was done withing specs or you did it again. Now, they just assess a penalty, so everyone pads their bids by about 10%, get dinged for quality, and still walk away with as much as they wanted in the first place. Trying a WPA on highways would yield roads worse when they got done than when they started (amazingly enough, I have seen this done as it is without adding that hazard).

The other problem is political. Dems would have to throw unions under the bus, which they won't do, and Reps won't touch a program like that with a 10 foot pole.

 

[sun]

I was reading the post on drug testing welfare people and it made me think of this.

Why can we as a society not require women who receive welfare to be on a contraceptive like these implants that can be removed http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/implanon/basics/definition/PRC-20015073?

I don't want to punish people who truly need assistance, but how often do you hear about women having 3, 4 ,5 or more kids while on welfare. It sort of falls in that screw me once shame on you, screw me twice, shame on me category.

I am simply saying that if you want to take our money you should be required to not make the situation worse. If you don't want to be implanted fine, then don't accept our money. If you get back on your feet and want more children, then it can be removed and you are free to procreate at will. Just don't do it on our dime.

I know some of the women's right groups would probably have a cow, but ironically these would probably be the same groups that want us to pay for abortions with our tax money.

I am not trying to pick on women, but until men start shooting out babies, it is kind of a one sided issue. Fair, no. Reality, yes.

Reality, no. No responsible elected representatives at either the state or Federal level would ever vote for such a draconian proposal, and certainly not enough for it to ever pass and become law. The cities would begin to be burned again as happened in many cities throughout the country during the era of civil unrest and the war on poverty during the 1960's.
They just raised the minimum wage in my state to $8.75 per hour, and it will increase to $9.00 on Jan. 1, 2015.
As of Jan. 1, 21 states will have a minimum wage above the Federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
That's a different approach to help people to lift themselves out of poverty which is the real problem being described here. Give honest folks a genuine incentive to work and if possible, they will work.

On Jan. 1, the minimum wage in 13 states will increase to these amounts.

State New minimum wage
Arizona $7.90
Colorado $8.00
Connecticut $8.70
Florida $7.93
Missouri $7.50
Montana $7.90
New Jersey $8.25
New York $8.00
Ohio $7.95
Oregon $9.10
Rhode Island $8.00
Vermont $8.73
Washington $9.32

13 states raising pay for minimum-wage workers

 

[Whitsettd8]

Slavery really? Lets define that.
Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work.[SUP][1][/SUP] Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand compensation

No one is being held against their will, I wish they all would leave and they already refuse to work but still get compensation.
No they should be treated exactly like us. I don't know where you work but if I don't come in do my job to a satisfactory level I don't get paid.

I'm speaking very broadly I know there are folks that do need it but most abuse it. The system is broke in many ways.

 

[cobber]

Give honest folks a genuine incentive to work and if possible, they will work.

Beginning with that premise, we don't have a problem at all.


However...

 

[steveh_131]

That's a different approach to help people to lift themselves out of poverty which is the real problem being described here. Give honest folks a genuine incentive to work and if possible, they will work.

Awwwwww. Your opinion of humanity is so adorable.

Forcing business owners to pay employees more than their work is worth is more draconian than allowing people to voluntarily sterilize themselves in exchange for welfare.

 

[copperhead-1911]

Reality, no. No responsible elected representatives at either the state or Federal level would ever vote for such a draconian proposal, and certainly not enough for it to ever pass and become law. The cities would begin to be burned again as happened in many cities throughout the country during the era of civil unrest and the war on poverty during the 1960's.
They just raised the minimum wage in my state to $8.75 per hour, and it will increase to $9.00 on Jan. 1, 2015.
As of Jan. 1, 21 states will have a minimum wage above the Federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
That's a different approach to help people to lift themselves out of poverty which is the real problem being described here. Give honest folks a genuine incentive to work and if possible, they will work.

It would not pass because we have become a nation of wussies with no morals ( see election of Obama twice)

 

[CZB1962]

Reality, no. No responsible elected representatives at either the state or Federal level would ever vote for such a draconian proposal, and certainly not enough for it to ever pass and become law. The cities would begin to be burned again as happened in many cities throughout the country during the era of civil unrest and the war on poverty during the 1960's.
They just raised the minimum wage in my state to $8.75 per hour, and it will increase to $9.00 on Jan. 1, 2015.
As of Jan. 1, 21 states will have a minimum wage above the Federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
That's a different approach to help people to lift themselves out of poverty which is the real problem being described here. Give honest folks a genuine incentive to work and if possible, they will work.

Minimum wage is a whole other conversation. Should it be raised...probably. Should it be the same in West Virginia as it is in New York....No. In New York, $12.00 an hour is nothing, in West Virginia, or dare I say parts of Indiana...not a bad wage.

The problem I have with the $12 proposal is that while it raises the very poorest, it hurts the middle just as much. My Daughter went through 7 years of college to get her BS, Masters, and EDS plus a year of internship to become a school Physiologist. She makes around $43K which is not horrible, but that is with all that college. Now some are proposing that a high school dropout is entitled to $24K. That's fine if everyone else gets a raise equal in percentage, but then the minimum wage folks would be right back where they are so what good would it do.

The fact is that if minimum wage gets raised that much all at once, everyone else just took a cut.

No good answer except to be one of the college graduates or at least high school with some skills and not the dropout. You reap what you sow.

 

[halfmileharry]

Spay and neuter, place existing children in orphanage, this would break the cycle.

Worked out good for the Germans back in the 40s.
As much dislike as I feel for the abuse of these programs there must be a better way to wean the pups off the teat. Them teeth are getting pretty sharp.

 

[StuBob]

I was reading the post on drug testing welfare people and it made me think of this.

Why can we as a society not require women who receive welfare to be on a contraceptive like these implants that can be removed http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/implanon/basics/definition/PRC-20015073?

I don't want to punish people who truly need assistance, but how often do you hear about women having 3, 4 ,5 or more kids while on welfare. It sort of falls in that screw me once shame on you, screw me twice, shame on me category.

I am simply saying that if you want to take our money you should be required to not make the situation worse. If you don't want to be implanted fine, then don't accept our money. If you get back on your feet and want more children, then it can be removed and you are free to procreate at will. Just don't do it on our dime.

I know some of the women's right groups would probably have a cow, but ironically these would probably be the same groups that want us to pay for abortions with our tax money.

I am not trying to pick on women, but until men start shooting out babies, it is kind of a one sided issue. Fair, no. Reality, yes.

Well, when you put one of those into someone against her will, you've committed assault. It would be unethical for any medical professional to place the implant. When, as a result of the medication, she gets a blood clot in her leg and that clot breaks off and goes to her lungs, causing her death, you've committed a homicide.

The solution to a stupid government program isn't a stupider government program.

 

[StuBob]

As of Jan. 1, 21 states will have a minimum wage above the Federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.
That's a different approach to help people to lift themselves out of poverty which is the real problem being described here. Give honest folks a genuine incentive to work and if possible, they will work.

Give employers a disincentive to hire people, as in increasing the minimum wage, and you'll get fewer people working.

 

[CZB1962]

Well, when you put one of those into someone against her will, you've committed assault. It would be unethical for any medical professional to place the implant. When, as a result of the medication, she gets a blood clot in her leg and that clot breaks off and goes to her lungs, causing her death, you've committed a homicide.

The solution to a stupid government program isn't a stupider government program.

I am not sugessting that we tie anybody down and do it against their will. I am saying that there would be a choice. Sign a consent form to have an implant as part of accepting public assitance or don't, there is a choice.

Again I equate it to the state saying that by accepting a drivers license I have consented to a breath/blood test for DUI. If I don't like it I have a choice to not have a drivers license. Granted it is not a good choice and some like me may even say it is coersion but society has said it is acceptable for the greater good. BTW I have never been stopped for DUI, it is just an example.

We also court order alcholholics convicted of DUI to take a drug that will make them ill if they drink. I think it is called antabuse. Even in those cases I assume they have a choice, take the drug or go to jail.