Holes in the social safety net: Keeping the poor in their place

reply to post by slackerwire


"- Any children in the welfare recipients household should be placed in temporary foster care until the parents can support themselves and their family."

-------------------------------------------------------

ummm.....ya....the foster care system can't take care of what they have now....
guess it depends on what you mean by welfare recipient here.....I am talking about anyone who is recieving any kind of assistance (outside of disability or social security)..... I would require them get a job, any job....but then, I would also require, even when they had that job, to continue looking for a job that would get them off that assistance. their job search would be verified just like unemployment verifies the job searches. maybe this would be enough of an annoyance to employers that they might consider raising the wages on the lower end enough...

as far as what I am.....no, I don't consider myself a "feminazi" or whatever. I am generally easy going, wake up every morning about an hour and a half before I have to and deliver my husbands coffee to him in bed, go to work, bring home a paycheck, sign it, give it to him to throw into our joint bank account...then, well, I know he has a tendency to slightly overspend, so I really underspend.....spend less than three dollars a day usually, wear my kids handmedowns for the most part. he buys the groceries, or we go together and whatever else the household needs.....we get along basically okay, but there are times, when well.....he knows that I am not gonna back down about something, so he might as well back down or his life will be unpleasant for awhile...but then, if we were all HONEST....we'd have to say the same thing...wouldn't we.
by the way, I am 50 years old, which is probably why we don't see eye to eye on this.
that little lady with the 7 kids, that was way back in the late 60's or early 70's. the reason why I said that he might have gotten away with paying child support was because he was a lawyer, had seven kids and well.....there was proof of adultery...more than likely he got hit hard in the divorce case and would have lost respect in the community if he hadn't done something to take care of those kids...a lawyer, in such a case would more than likely have had to move out of the area to practice law in that case.....
but my half sister well.....that's another story. I know for a fact her dad never sent my mom a dime. and I had a few friends of single moms...don't seem like they were getting much support either.

so, your mom worked two jobs while you were growing up? just one question...who watched you? this lady had seven kids....starting at under a year old all the way up to maybe 10 years old....if it was in today's world, she would have needed a job that pays about $21 dollars an hour just to cover the cost of the child care. when my 3 kids were real little, I could pull a little bit of a profit by working the jobs I could get, but as the government got involved, the cost started going up....a dollar an hours just doesn't cut it anymore, not when the government is paying out $3 an hour per child and adds all these nice regulations, classes that must be taken, ect.... the government is setting the costs of the basic necessities now, the rent, childcare, ect. and they are pricing the stuff beyond what many can afford. I have three kids, by the time my youngest was four....it would have cost me more money for babysitting than I was making. making employment a losing proposition.

like I said, a fair child support system would require both to contribute half of the extra costs of the children's needs, child care included. it's not doing that. if they take it from many of these dads...well...dad isn't gonna be able to function good enough to hold the job even, and then well...they have all these programs that are basically designed for mom...because they don't expect her to be able to. heck, they don't WANT her to. ever consider just what the unemployment rate in this country would have been if all these mom that are sitting home were out looking for work also?

Originally posted by dawnstar

ummm.....ya....the foster care system can't take care of what they have now....
guess it depends on what you mean by welfare recipient here.....I am talking about anyone who is recieving any kind of assistance (outside of disability or social security)..... I would require them get a job, any job....but then, I would also require, even when they had that job, to continue looking for a job that would get them off that assistance. their job search would be verified just like unemployment verifies the job searches. maybe this would be enough of an annoyance to employers that they might consider raising the wages on the lower end enough...

Question: Would you require them to pay *back* the $$ they used for the welfare?

All the ppl who justify welfare in anyway, you *do* realize that Robin Hood was still a thief, don't you? The government is stealing from the working citizens to give to the "poor" (and I put quotes there bc there is a SERIOUS misconception these days of what poor really is).

I do know that here in texas, men whose exes are on welfare, be it food stamps or medicade, are supposed to be required to pay it back to the state. However, I don't think they really enforce this much anymore

but my half sister well.....that's another story. I know for a fact her dad never sent my mom a dime. and I had a few friends of single moms...don't seem like they were getting much support either.

So, if they were taking the assistance, how did they feel justified in not going after the child support but stealing from working Americans' pockets?

so, your mom worked two jobs while you were growing up? just one question...who watched you? this lady had seven kids....starting at under a year old all the way up to maybe 10 years old....if it was in today's world, she would have needed a job that pays about $21 dollars an hour just to cover the cost of the child care.

Well, also in today's world there is such a thing known as the internet that ppl can make pretty good *honest* money off of. those kids also would be in school for a good majority of the day, would they not?

like I said, a fair child support system would require both to contribute half of the extra costs of the children's needs, child care included. it's not doing that.

No, the mother's are not learning how to hold the father responsible. It can be done, but most would rather just mooch off of others' money than to educate themselves on how things work.

Also there are non profit charities all over the place that ppl have actually GIVEN their money too in order to help ppl in these situations w/ clothes, food, bills, and other necessities. But the gov't makes it so easy for ppl to rely on them for the stolen money and a lot of ppl don't understand the difference btw necessities and comforts.

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by Sestias

 

many of the people footing the bill can't manage to save $3,000, all the money they earn are going to pay taxes, the rent, food for their, healthcare, and well, the basic necessities. anybody willing to give them the money to save also?

If you saved $50 a month for five years you'd have $3,000.

We don't know what Ms. Capetillo did without (I would guess some things most of us would consider necessities) in order to save that money, or how long it took her. It doesn't say.

I don't save as much as I should either, but that's my fault, not the fault of some woman on welfare who saves her pennies. In this culture we're supposed to value thrift and savings, or so I always thought.

As I've already said elsewhere, nobody seems to care if she blows all her money on lottery tickets but so many of you are livid because she manages to save a dime here and there. As the book points out, the message to the poor is clear: spend every cent you get or people will want to take what little you have back.

Originally posted by dawnstar




ummm.....ya....the foster care system can't take care of what they have now....

Neither can the welfare recipient

so, your mom worked two jobs while you were growing up? just one question...who watched you?

Grandparents until I turned 12, then I took care of myself.

so, because the mother can't earn enough to support the family, along with all if her maternal responsibilities (half of which, like I said is the father's responsibility really, they ain't stepping up to that plate very well either). we can throw them all into foster care....and pay for the whole shabang!!!

So, if they were taking the assistance, how did they feel justified in not going after the child support but stealing from working Americans' pockets?

I think back then (going back to the story of the lawyer with the 7 kids and nice sexitary) public assistance basically amounted to standing in line for canned peanut butter, cheese, powdered milk and such. maybe, there was a place you could go where you could go through second hand clothing and household goods and pick out what you needed...maybe. seem to remember something like that.
but while I was raising my kids, I met alot of single moms who were going after their husbands for the support. there seems to be a little game that some of the men play....get a job, fake a back injury, can't work....get disability, don't have to pay support....go find a job under the table!

my mom and dad both worked when I was growing up.....two paychecks, no assistance... the only thing I remember about my mom's mother is her funeral, and my dad's mom live across the state... my mom worked nights as a bartender, my dad worked swing shift for the water department. sometimes my sister would watch us.....sometimes, my dad would take me to work with him, and sometimes, my mom would take me to work with her. try taking your kid to work with ya now days..... I got a feeling that the extended family is even more extended now than it was back then. niether of my grandparents were physically able to take charge of us while my parents were at work anyways... neither was my mom. so, I guess the point that I am making is that having mom watch the kids while a person works isn't gonna an option for many women.

All the ppl who justify welfare in anyway, you *do* realize that Robin Hood was still a thief, don't you? The government is stealing from the working citizens to give to the "poor" (and I put quotes there bc there is a SERIOUS misconception these days of what poor really is).

ya, and they're stealing money from us to give to their business buddies in the guise of "job creation"....something that much more of would have been needed if all of those women who were content sitting on welfare were out looking for jobs! I've watched up in NY State while they practically gave developers all the money that they required to build a stupid mall, or hotel, or whatever.....use eminent domain to kick out existing businesses or residents all in the name of job creation. then, the unfair advantage that these businesses have over other existing businesses causes them to go out of business because the area just wasn't capable of pulling in the patrons for the businesses that were in existance to begin with.....there are less jobs than there was before, empty buildings sitting wasting away, while resourses and $$$$ is being wasted building new ones....all in the name of job creation!!!

Well, also in today's world there is such a thing known as the internet that ppl can make pretty good *honest* money off of. those kids also would be in school for a good majority of the day, would they not?

there's also a thing called internet scams.....which most of the "work at home" opportunities are...pyramid schemes where your job is to con the next person to con the next. there's also a mass of federal and state regulations that you have to shift through to legally operate a business. and well, I ain't sure if it's just Norfolk or the entire state of virginia. but before we moved here, I read online where you can't run a business from home if you are renting. that's as far as I got, what can I say, either I am working and don't have the time I would need to invest in such an enterprise, or I have plenty of time and no money to invest. and, well, there's one thing I am pretty sure of......you're gonna need money to make money!

No, the mother's are not learning how to hold the father responsible. It can be done, but most would rather just mooch off of others' money than to educate themselves on how things work.

Also there are non profit charities all over the place that ppl have actually GIVEN their money too in order to help ppl in these situations w/ clothes, food, bills, and other necessities. But the gov't makes it so easy for ppl to rely on them for the stolen money and a lot of ppl don't understand the difference btw necessities and comforts.

and where are the fathers? how are they holding up to the idea that they should be providing a little bit of that care and nurturing? why are the single moms dropping their kids off at daycare centers instead of dad's house?
One of my coworkers is a single mom, right now, for the past two months, I think she's hitting maybe a 50% attendance rate! she's sick, the kids are sick, the kids in the hospital, ect. ect. ect.......dad's no where in sight!

and we've tried the charity bit.....it didn't work too well....obviously, or there wouldn't have been a need for the government to step in and take it on! I mean we had kids in the factories working trying to pull in enough money for the family to survive. that's how well it worked.

and nothing you can say will negate this one basic truth.....
a family that is struggling to come up with the basic necessities together, doesn't stand a cold chance in hades of supporting two households!

the family needs to stay together to begin with. I just don't see where giving the women the impression that they should always surrender their desires, good judgement, goals, ect to the husband, and then convincing the men that that is what the women is to do, is gonna be conducive to that family staying together. the problems will never be worked out, the women will always lose by default, and well......the problem will just grow into an unworkable mess!
ya know, my father survived just fine picking up the slack at the homefront while my mom worked. I tried to convince my husband of this when my kids were young but well....."why should he have to work hard just to come home and have to watch the kids"....so, now, I am working my arse off trying to do a 30 yr old's job....but I am fifty..... he's got a nice easy plush job because he's got the work experience to get it....because I was home watching the kids for him!














[edit on 30-7-2008 by dawnstar]

Originally posted by slackerwire

And don't kid yourself; even if all social programs were discontinued your taxes wouldn't be reduced. We have this expensive war going on.

Have any factual evidence to back that up, or is it just mere speculation on the part of someone who doesn't really pay attention to Constitutional matters anyways?

Actually, much more of your tax money goes to what are called "middle class entitlements" (social security, medicare, social security disability, veterans' benefits) than goes to programs for the poor. Of course, you may feel that these entitlements are also unconstitutional, though I don't understand why anyone would oppose veterans' benefits; considering that they've served their country, I see those as part of their pay.

Medicaid, a program for the poor, is paid for by counties and states, which also fund a large part of other assistance for the poor. You've already said that states, in your interpretation of the Constitution, can do as they like.

Then you can't overlook the fact that a large chunk of your tax money goes to businesses--"corporate welfare."

I will research exactly what percent of your tax dollar goes to the poor and get back to you.

considering the present financial state of our government...I would about guarentee that our taxes are not going to go down anytime soon, regardless of what they do now...
the present administration has pretty much assured this with their tax breaks accompanied by record spending and borrowing.
the question is....
how much longer will our government continue to be able to fund these social programs...or much of anything else really?

reply to post by dawnstar

I would agree that tax breaks for the top 1% of the population, especially when coupled with tax breaks and other subsidies for corporations, total much more than all the welfare programs for the poor combined.

The war costs $12B per month. This country will still be in debt when our grandchildren are grown.

Both Democrats and Republicans believe they have the answers for poverty. The liberals believe it is the result of the failure of our institutions, and conservatives believe it is the failure of individuals and families. Both are right. What is needed is a bipartisan effort. But, as many of you who have posted are saying, the lines between the poor, the working class and the middle class are very thin.

Another excerpt from "Ending Poverty in America: How to Restore the American Dream," ed. Sen. John Edwards, Marion Crain and Arne L. Kalleberg:

It soon became apparent, however, that paid labor-force participation was not necessarily an escape from poverty. Most of the poor in America live in working families. One in four people who work full-time, year-round, still earn less than the amount of money needed to keep a family of four above the poverty threshold. The labor-supply programs that accompanied the shift from welfare to work were not successful in alleviating poverty: the bulk of former welfare recipients moved into the ranks of the working poor, finding employment at low-wage jobs with few benefits.

Poverty and economic insecurity were thus revealed as a continuum rather than a dichotomy; with the barriers between the underclass, the working class, and even the middle class far more permeable than was once believed. The working poor and the middle class found themselves facing variants of the same problems that plague the underclass: they work, but at jobs with too little wage income, too little job security, too few opportunities for advancement, and too few health insurance or retirement benefits. They depend upon poorly-functioning public schools and inadequate child- and day-care systems, face soaring housing and transportation costs, and stagger under a rising debt load. They survive on the edge. The economic devastation in the wake of a job loss, medical crisis, the loss of one income from divorce, or natural disasters (such as Hurricane Katrina) can easily push them off their precarious perch .

Economic insecurity is not just a problem of the "lazy" poor, but a good portion of the population. If we understood that, there would be more people working together to solve the problems of poverty.



[edit on 2-8-2008 by Sestias]

No responses to my last post? It's the best statement of what I believe about relieving poverty that I've written so far.

It's not enough to beat up on the poor or to try to control their every move--like trying to get them to STOP SAVING--but to recognize how thin the line is between the poor, the working poor and the middle class. Many of us are one crisis away from being at the bottom of the income distribution. Improving one's work ethic, developing self-reliance and evaluating the strength of one's family structure are all important, but not the whole answer. Society has to be willing to look at all aspects of the problem and find the best solutions.

I welcome your answers.

Any and all forms of welfare are unconstitutional, hence they need to be stopped immediately.

I'm really fed up with this sort of argument already. It's not in the constitution that I can't drink and drive, is it? So, by your sick logic, I should be allowed to? Equally, nowhere in consitution does it say that people walking dogs are required to pick up their dog's poop. Therefore, soiling our sidewalks is perfectly legal.

You, apparently, are perfectly happy seeing somebody infirm or unable to find immediate work to just starve or freeze to death, just to satisfy your exacting knowledge of constitutional law. How sick, just how sick can you be.

reply to post by buddhasystem

If I understand Slackerwire correctly, state and local governments can pass any laws they see fit and that would be constitutional. So under his interpretation of the constitution your state government can freely pass "pooper scooper" laws. Drunk driving is more complicated. While the individual states each pass their own laws, they can't get federal highway funds unless they raise the drinking age to 21. That, I believe, would be questionable to a strict, original-intent constitutionalist.

I do agree, though, that strict constitutionalists are usually selective in what they object to, and it's usually social programs.

reply to post by slackerwire


Sexual harassment lawsuit and get what? Fired and blacklisted from ever working again? It's the squeaky wheel that gets replaced.

Tell me how an 18 year old male fresh out of high school has more experience than a woman that has been doing the job for years. And yes, I have said those exact words to my employer. But yeah! Since my post, a woman has taken over as boss and guess what? I got a raise and so did the other female welder. So maybe the world is not such a bad place after all.

It was the idea that a woman needs a man for means of support that is false. The tragedy occurs when the woman agrees to be the man's doormat and then poof! he is gone without a second thought and so is his support for the kids. There is male bias in the working world and it is unavoidable. Our society is still in the baby step stages of equality.

A welfare system was set up to help women and their children and now it is being abused. Women are living with the father of their children and not reporting it. People are working for cash and not reporting it, yet still collect benefits. There are also instances of people being offered employment that turn it down preferring to live off of government handouts.

The original topic was keeping the poor in their place. I am just saying that is not the case with the welfare programs. However, the government officials are doing a fine job contributing to the rise in the cost of living so that even people who were just getting by not being on welfare are now really struggling.

Many businesses are closed or relocated to a different country, people have lost jobs. Taxes on the rise, gas prices up, raw material costs are up, and now food prices will see a major hike. It is no longer keeping the poor in their place, but creating more poverty that is becoming the issue.

The welfare program was not designed to support a family forever. It was supposed to be temporary for those who had absolutely nothing. The woman who saved $3000 had something. Everyone on it has the potential to get off of it, but that requires a plan and hard work. It's just so much easier not to.

Recently, I attended a seminar and the focus was "The Information Age". The more you know, the more you get paid. The backbone of America, all the little workers that know nothing but sweat, are not valued. But the one with the big ideas of how to make more money and can develop a plan of saving the company money while increasing profit, now that is the person of value that deserves more than the grunt that has to do the actual work. It almost sounded like a recipe for slavery. It is not a new concept. Companies have been practicing it for years. The CEO makes millions while the production worker makes minimum wage.

Centuries ago, the landlord would allow the little workers and their families to live on his land in exchange for sweat. The agreement did not extend to the landlord providing enough food for the family of the serf to survive. What makes our society any different from centuries ago? Our welfare system provides for the serfs family so he can sweat for the lord of the land. Keeping the poor in their place? Of course, but it is not the welfare program doing that.

reply to post by Psychopump


Freedom is an illusion. We are not free. We submit to authority figures that dictate to us how we should think and serve. In exchange, the authority figures grant us special "freedoms". That is all a part of living in our society.

Real freedom is the absence of authority. Most people fear real freedom, claiming things like anarchy and evil running amuck. If we did not have a government forcing us to help our fellow citizens, do you think we might have the brains to figure it out for ourselves that charity can be beneficial to the receiver as well as the giver?

Originally posted by peggy m
reply to post by Psychopump

 

We submit to authority figures that dictate to us how we should think and serve.

Speak for yourself, please. At least, don´t include me in your ´we´.
I can smell freedom, and have chosen to follow my nose.

Originally posted by peggy m
reply to post by Psychopump

 

Freedom is an illusion. We are not free. We submit to authority figures that dictate to us how we should think and serve. In exchange, the authority figures grant us special "freedoms". That is all a part of living in our society.

Real freedom is the absence of authority. Most people fear real freedom, claiming things like anarchy and evil running amuck. If we did not have a government forcing us to help our fellow citizens, do you think we might have the brains to figure it out for ourselves that charity can be beneficial to the receiver as well as the giver?

okay, consider.....alot of people don't have the brains to see the benefit to them from their acts of charity...and that people don't see the benefit of not ripping off the government by lying about their living arrangements and such, and the bosses don't see the benefit of laying their bias aside and treating everyone equally.....
ummm....
could someone, maybe someone who has a little more power of persuasion please explain to the nit wits in this society what that benefit is.....they don't seem to be listening to me!!

dependancy=servitude....
more people are becoming dependent on our government....
more businesses are becoming dependent on our government....(remember......counting on the government to feed and house your employees, provide them with healthcare....well, that is dependency also!!)
and well.....WE ARE LOSING OUR FREEDOM HERE!!!

reply to post by Sestias


"Society has to be willing to look at all aspects of the problem and find the best solutions."

Now we are getting somewhere. Poverty is a social problem and it is up to the society to solve it. Have you heard about the "Living Wage" proposal? It suggests doing away with the federal minimum wage and instituting a local "living wage". The living wage would be determined by area and would be just enough to pay for life's necessities. www.universallivingwage.org...

Would this proposal be a better solution than taking away people's freedoms who need help?

reply to post by Psychopump

Don't kid yourself. You submit to authority everyday without even realizing it.
Are you employed? Do you rent? Do you have a mortgage? A loan?

Originally posted by dawnstar

Originally posted by peggy m
reply to post by Psychopump

 

ummm....
could someone, maybe someone who has a little more power of persuasion please explain to the nit wits in this society what that benefit is.....they don't seem to be listening to me!!

dependancy=servitude....
more people are becoming dependent on our government....
more businesses are becoming dependent on our government....(remember......counting on the government to feed and house your employees, provide them with healthcare....well, that is dependency also!!)
and well.....WE ARE LOSING OUR FREEDOM HERE!!!

What benefits could there possibly be of helping one another in times of need and having a little more equality? It couldn't possibly be PEACE.. could it? An epidemic of happy people would emerge.

Not to worry, though. Our society is safe from any positive long term change. Greed and arrogance will reign supreme and those who have will get more and more from those who have not.

If it wasn't for the fact that I am struggling and paying more than my fair share of the tax burden to help my fellow neighbors while the rich get all the tax breaks... I wouldn't be so upset that people abuse the welfare system. But is the Robin Hood approach truly a viable solution?

I cannot imagine the social changes if everyone were "equalized". There would be no social climbing. What would goals be like?

Originally posted by peggy m
reply to post by Sestias

 

"Society has to be willing to look at all aspects of the problem and find the best solutions."

Now we are getting somewhere. Poverty is a social problem and it is up to the society to solve it. Have you heard about the "Living Wage" proposal? It suggests doing away with the federal minimum wage and instituting a local "living wage". The living wage would be determined by area and would be just enough to pay for life's necessities. www.universallivingwage.org...

Would this proposal be a better solution than taking away people's freedoms who need help?

I would agree with this enthusiastically. The challenge would be to make a really fair assessment of what "just enough to pay for life's necessities" might be. The federal guidelines for what is considered a poverty level are unrealistically low for most areas. That's one reason people sometimes try to cheat the system. These guidelines are based on the estimated cost of food and often do not consider factors such as the cost of renting even a small trailer or apt. Rents can vary a lot from one part of the country to another. The idea of calculating a local living wage would seem to address that.

This, of course, would include only those who are really capable of working; I would not say it would be a good solution for the mentally challenged or mentally ill, the elderly poor, the truly disabled, etc.

[edit on 18-9-2008 by Sestias]