Dvergar wrote:
I know, I know, you think people on welfare are shitty wastes of life. It doesn't matter how they got there, how long they're on it, what their situation is at all. All that matters is your assumption that as soon as they get benefits they are all going to atrophy and become wards of the state. That because these people find themselves in hard times they are clearly weak individuals looking for a teat to latch onto.
I did not say that. Nor did I imply it. It's definitely true of quite a few. Not all.
The very fact that perception exists - even more so that you attribute it to others whether or not they say so - is proof the system needs restructuring.
Dvergar wrote:
Applicants are treated as Adult with or without dependents. Your question was why I always said "mothers". Nothing I said indicated males were treated any differently than women, in fact I noted said equality in the very quote you posted. Try to keep up with the context of the discussion, I know it's difficult.
I didn't insult you so it is worth asking why you insult me.
Yes, you did say something that indicated that males were treated differently. In your initial post, you depicted men antagonistically and women positively. You did not use gender neutral terms nor were your insinuations ("deadbeat") gender-neutral.
Dvergar wrote:
Aestu wrote:
How has it "changed radically"?
People have been talking about the need to "help families" since the ancient world. That never goes out of style. By your own account it's still nothing more than handing out checks, or food stamps, same as it's always been.
So how has it "changed"?
The welfare system in America has changed radically since the time in which the common misconceptions about it arose. You knew what I meant when I typed it, but you try to re-frame quotes to put people on the defensive with unrelated issues. If you would like to discuss welfare in ancient societies you are free to do that, but it was in no way part of my post.
You repeated your statement and insulted me - but you didn't answer my question.
How has it changed? It's still about passing subjective judgements and cutting checks.
Dvergar wrote:
If dad and mom are living together and apply for benefits they would both be forced to work. If the kids are young mom might not have to work, but would be pressured to do so, dad must work. Failure to do so would result in at least reduced benefits, with the pinch in funding the caseworker would most likely cut funding entirely.
Aestu wrote:
Ah-ha. So it is both de jure sexist, and de facto subjective and biased.
How is that fair?
I'm not a lawyer and I'm not a caseworker with the DPW. If the couple decided the male should stay at home while the woman worked, that would be acceptable. The issue is not which parent, the issue is childcare. It would be an issue with childcare if it were one male and dependent or one female and dependent. Children without mental or physical handicaps that require special attention and are older than 6 (I think, it might be state specific) do not qualify for a childcare exception. Even if a child is younger than 6 the parent is urged to find childcare while they work. Once the child is old enough, the state can reduce or deny benefits to those who refuse to work.
Quote:
That sounds nice and PC but it's no different than the Jim Crow south where people, who get paid either way, would sit in judgement of those not like them.
Right, except no one sits in judgment of them, the judges sign off on the ITAP to make sure the caseworker is doing their job, they have rights, and the entire point of the ITAP and CYS is to work with the parents to allow them to regain custody of the children. So no, no it's nothing like the Jim Crow south.
They ARE sitting in judgement of them.
Judges and caseworkers aren't secretaries. "Work with"..."signs off"..."have rights"..."allow to regain"..."found sufficient reason"...
All those are euphemisms for passing judgement - for deciding who gets what.
Going back to another thread, how often do those judges and caseworkers award custody to the male parent?
What if the caseworker and client are black versus white? Do you really think the one in a position of no power is going to get an even shake?
Dvergar wrote:
Quote:
It is also monstrously expensive.
Not even slightly. But, given your complete ignorance of the welfare system and CYS I can see why you'd think that.
How much of the federal budget is spent on entitlements again? Wasn't it like 35%? That's what, 700 billion dollars? You're telling me this isn't expensive?
http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Flo ... ate_budgetWelfare in Florida is $7.7 billion out of a $60B budget, adding up to about 12% of the total budget and more than is spent on pensions and only 25% less than is spent on education.
How can you say that's "not expensive"? Did you know the facts? Who is "ignorant" here?
I mention the cost of delivering welfare because there's a very good - and very true - scene in Steinbeck's
The Grapes of Wrath where the family meets with a social worker. At first, they don't trust him. But then they see he's wearing frayed clothes, and then they trust him more. The social worker tries to help them, but there's not much he can do.
That is a significant issue with caseworkers. They get paid very well and are primarily concerned with status. That is why they (almost invariably) dress elaborately, and it's also what more often than not drives them into the field: it is all about appearances. I've talked with quite a few caseworkers, and they have a determined lack of interest in thinking about what happens in the future; they are only interested in "feeling good" in the here and now.
So I don't trust the kinds of "objective", technical-sounding mechanisms you describe to solve problems. In my experience, those kinds of system serve to befuddle those who might be helped, and serve more to make people feel good than to help them. If you want I can describe my fairly extensive experiences in depth.
The point I'm making is this: Doing something is not necessarily better than doing nothing. Very often these entitlement programs can hurt those they are meant to help by stringing along the status quo. The question is seldom asked: is charity, or entitlements, given out of a desire to help people, or a desire to help ourselves?
Don't for a moment doubt the very real value to individuals and society of finding the easiest and best-paying way there is to play the "good guy".
Don't for a moment doubt how much that insidious motive plays into the entitlements debacle. And how much it hurts the disadvantaged.