green

Do I think that mothers of school age children be forced to work? Not for the first 2 years, while they are on my opinion of welfare reform. That is unless they are physically disabled. Then there should be long term assistance.

So this means you support well over 90% of current federal welfare? Splain to me again how it is that the concept of welfare enrages you when you seem to support exactly where the vast majority of it its going?

rickyp wrote:green

Do I think that mothers of school age children be forced to work? Not for the first 2 years, while they are on my opinion of welfare reform. That is unless they are physically disabled. Then there should be long term assistance.

So this means you support well over 90% of current federal welfare? Splain to me again how it is that the concept of welfare enrages you when you seem to support exactly where the vast majority of it its going?

I'm not sure if that's a serious percentage or not--given the nature of your post.

However, I would say this: I do know there are plenty of welfare moms who calculate the "pay raise" in having more children. Is that something taxpayer's MUST support? I don't know. I do know that some sort of Solomonic wisdom needs to be applied here. No one should be allowed to spend 15 to 20 years on the dole unless they are physically or mentally incapable--and I am intentionally not listing psychologically. The latter is abused beyond belief.

RickyP,
Yes, I would support 2 years of Welfare, IF it were limited to that two years for a lifetime. Have we come to an agreement position? Kumbaya, RickyP.

Green Arrow wrote:RickyP,
Yes, I would support 2 years of Welfare, IF it were limited to that two years for a lifetime. Have we come to an agreement position? Kumbaya, RickyP.

As a former Mormon, putting aside theology, I have to say they have a great welfare system for church members. When in need, you get everything--and I mean everything. However, they do require some work in return. Why? Because they understand that work brings a sense of self-worth whereas handouts given with no strings for indefinite periods merely develop a sense of entitlement.

Buddy, if women with kids stop being poor after two years, a two year limit makes sense...
How do you think that is going to happen? Magic?

Maybe you beleive that you can help people adjust..That is pay them to go to school, and pay their day care while they go to work. Thats the Chicago project you pointed to... Which had a bout a 35% success rate?
Thats still welfare, just pointed to helping some people become independent. And its going to last while the kids are not of school age, and perhaps after that. A lot of these women would be working at minimum wage. Thats doesn't give them a lot of resources to house, clothe and feed their kids....
And its the kids we should really be concerned about.

The long term solution is to reduce the incidence of teenaged women getting pregnant. Sex education, availability of counselling and health services and availability of contraception would all achieve that goal. Long term.

rickyp wrote:Buddy, if women with kids stop being poor after two years, a two year limit makes sense...
How do you think that is going to happen? Magic?

Maybe you beleive that you can help people adjust..That is pay them to go to school, and pay their day care while they go to work. Thats the Chicago project you pointed to... Which had a bout a 35% success rate?
Thats still welfare, just pointed to helping some people become independent. And its going to last while the kids are not of school age, and perhaps after that. A lot of these women would be working at minimum wage. Thats doesn't give them a lot of resources to house, clothe and feed their kids....
And its the kids we should really be concerned about.

The long term solution is to reduce the incidence of teenaged women getting pregnant. Sex education, availability of counselling and health services and availability of contraception would all achieve that goal. Long term.

All good things... That are not the Government's job

If the Chicago project does not do a good job by giving recipients schooling and day care, why do you think giving more will do more?

Teenager getting pregnant - self defeating action; Perhaps you would support mandatory sterilization until marriage? That would solve the issue. After all, "it's the kids we should really be concerned about."

Why bring up the fact that my position would support 90% of people on welfare? Are you really not able to compromise to get 90% coverage? It must be "My way or the Highway" with you. No wonder we can't agree. You are being intentionally disagreeable.

rickyp wrote:The long term solution is to reduce the incidence of teenaged women getting pregnant. Sex education, availability of counselling and health services and availability of contraception would all achieve that goal. Long term.

Really? Is the problem teenaged women having babies or unmarried women having babies? Which one is a better indicator of poverty? Is being raised by a single mom a decent indicator of potential criminality (in other words, do kids in two parent homes go to jail as frequently as those with single moms)?

Is there a lack of sex education in schools? Not in CA or MA. And, I can tell you this: there is no shortage of high school girls getting pregnant in either State.

Parenting is the problem. Parents who don't have time for their kids is the problem. Lack of sex education, counseling, "health services," and contraception are not the problem.

Our societal lack of shame is another component. Schools now provide childcare for students. The message our society gives over and over again is: "there are no consequences for irresponsible behavior."

green

If the Chicago project does not do a good job by giving recipients schooling and day care, why do you think giving more will do more?

My point, Green, was that the welfare didn't stop after two years...it continued. It was just directed at specific things (child care, tuition). Its a worthwhile effort.
I can't understand your last paragraph.

rickyp wrote:green

If the Chicago project does not do a good job by giving recipients schooling and day care, why do you think giving more will do more?

My point, Green, was that the welfare didn't stop after two years...it continued. It was just directed at specific things (child care, tuition). Its a worthwhile effort.
I can't understand your last paragraph.

My point is that the Welfare can stop, but the need may not. How much do you think the Government is responsible for? Should the Government be responsible to pay EVERYONE for as long as they desire? To choose who to help and not help based upon financial status is discriminatory.

You can understand, RickyP. You are a smart man. You are choosing not to.

Just because we agree on 90% that is not good enough for you.

We agree that physically disabled people can be on welfare for the duration.
We agree that people can be on welfare for 2 years.
We agree that fraud is wrong.

Why does reform bother you so much when it requires recipients to be held accountable, and work to get a benefit. I would even support recipients working for the Government after the 2 years. You work 40 hours and get a full paycheck. You can pick trash, do daycare for other workers, paint inner cities. Make recipients put effort out to receive benefits.

Can we agree on that at least?

http://www.nwcn.com/home/?fId=116443274&fPath=/news/local&fDomain=10222

Is paying bail to get out of jail an acceptable us of welfare dollars? Apparently in Washington it is.

Do Danivon and RickyP support welfare benefits being used for bail?

green

Why does reform bother you so much when it requires recipients to be held accountable, and work to get a benefit. I

I said the Chicago project that was aimed at aiding welfare mothers to become employable and employed that it was worthwhile project. So I don't know where you infer the above...

What I've been arguing Green is that the welffare abuse you think exists is pretty damn small. And that by painting welfare with a broad brush you're engaging in hyperbole. Especially in that you and Steve are dependent on anecdotal evidence for your claims...

You've already seen that virtually all federal welfare is goning to single mothers. And you've agreed that they deserve assistance. You've stipulated that after a couple of years the assistance should be targeted and conditional. Which it often already is, apparently . (Your Chicago project).Somehow, you seem to think that this kind of help isn't welfare ....I don't get that.
On the whole, otehr than the fact that some women apparently aren't employable but have kids to raise ...and from whay you've writtten you'd write these families off from any support....
leading to this great statement:

My point is that the Welfare can stop, but the need may not.

And if they have no other means of support are they to take to the streets begging?

So other than a few anecdotes of abused cash cards, what information do you have that actually quantifies the enormous problem of welfare? The supposed single men or families operating $50,000 scams.... They are mythical. Ron Reagan actually used such an anedote in his election campaign in 84. After much searching it was discovered he made her up.


green

To choose who to help and not help based upon financial status is discriminatory

.
This is daft.

What I see as a major problem in this debate is the term "abuse" vs "Fraud" Fraud is wrong, is always wrong, will always be wrong. I can't imagine anyone who would support fraud and the percentage who engage in actual "fraud" is probably somewhat low. The real problem is in welfare abuse. The way the system works and has worked, it encourages abuse for the lazy. There are few incentives to get to work, you simply learn to do with less and get by on what is GIVEN to you. So the recipients learn ways to work the system legally for all they can, this includes having more children you can not support and further bogging down the entire system.

The real incentives are not to get back to work, the incentives are there to find new ways to get more and more. Have a kid? ...more money. Not married? ...more money. I mentioned my own freaking nephew (wife's side!) is guilty of this, it's all legal, he's working the system for all he can. He has a job but his girlfriend has no job and they are not married so they can collect even more. He has health insurance but has his own kid uncovered because the State picks up the tab for the single, poor mother. He could afford to get them on on his plan but that would mean getting a few less tattoos and fewer Xbox games per year!

To choose who to help and not help based upon financial status is discriminatory
...this is daft

hold on, not really

If a person is able to work but chooses NOT to work because they are lazy and they manage to get by on what is given to them, isn't that discriminatory to the person who is willing to work his ass off to get by? I work with a whole bunch of people paid very poorly but they work two jobs to scrape by, you want to punish them while rewarding able bodied lazy people? That seems like discrimination to me.

tom

If a person is able to work but chooses NOT to work because they are lazy and they manage to get by on what is given to them, isn't that discriminatory to the person who is willing to work his ass off to get by?

And how does this apply to the picture of welfare recipients that has been drawn in this discussion. SIngle mothers for the most part. Often young and with few skills when they go and get pregnant....
(And steve, i'm all for personal responsibility. But does society have a responsibility to those children? )

Tom, abuse or fraud to me is similar enough to be the same. Can you or anyone really give us an idea of the volume of fraud OR abuse? An authoritative source?
So far all we have are anecdotes which are supposed to represent a complete picture. The only sources of information so far seems to indicate most federal welfare is going to ensure children of single mothers have a chance at life.

Did you read what was said?
The system rewards these young mothers who "go and get pregnant" They get more money if they have a baby.
You may be right about an anecdote or two not painting a complete picture but when you have so damned many anecdotes from people we all know, you have a real problem!

If we had some sort of real source as to the level of fraud, gee, we would be able to eliminate it couldn't we?