Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

lol.

Unless that person is a plumber with clogged pipes... then they'd be a pretty worthless plumber.

An ex's mother had to go on welfare, she left a very abusive and controlling husband and had nothing. Another ex's parents made use of section 8 housing (Not welfare per se, and I don't exactly agree with what they did exactly). My mother used WIC.

I also spent a good amount of time volunteering at an emergency shelter in the city. It was primarily for women with children, but families could stay if space allowed (which it rarely did). One of the requirements to stay there was working with a caseworker to find you more permanent housing and make use of any programs that might help. Many were mothers who worked, but couldn't make ends meet. Either their family broke apart, they lost their job (and with no training they were all expendable and paid at minimum wages), health bills, there were a lot of reasons people found themselves out of a house and in financial trouble.

I know my experiences slant my views on welfare (I include all types welfare, section 8, etc), and I know there are people abusing the system. I have also seen firsthand the good it does and the people who legitimately need it.



You know, I find it important to try and see an issue from all sides even if I vehemently disagree with it and I usually agree that everything is shades of gray, but this really is that black and white.



Florida's answer is a pretty bad solution (getting someone else to receive benefits for the kids), but there isn't much they can do because the system itself needs a huge overhaul. They need to move away from cash and towards more definite benefits. They also need to move toward longer term solutions. Skill training is non-existent and people are forced to take any job, often jobs that will land them back into the programs that failed them initially.



Any kind of person could find themselves in that kind of situation. It seems you really want to believe that people in bad situations are entirely at their own fault, but that's simply not always the case. Bad things happen to people who haven't done anything wrong.



There was never anything in my post that even remotely insinuated that, men can fall on hard times just as women can.



Careful, your misogyny is showing. Your assertions are basically just coming from your feelings towards women, and don't seem to be backed up by anything. TANF requires mothers assist in the pursuit of child support, non-supportive mothers see their benefits reduced. Child support of welfare recipients is kept by the government in order to pay back the welfare being given out (except for some amount passed on, I think it's about 50 bucks).

Now, I don't know exactly what you're getting at here. Destructive factor as in she'd rather leave a home and go on welfare than stay with her husband/boyfriend? Do you want the government to start forcing people to stay in relationships? Do you want an office of relationship investigation to make sure a woman had a good reason to leave with the kids? And using their children as leverage to what, get welfare? The days of popping out kids to prolong welfare payments died with AFDC.

Welfare reform is sorely needed, but it needs to be substantive reform with an aim towards reducing recidivism, not the current republican trend of slash and burn.

Dvergar /
Quisling

There's a difference between saying "all women do this" and "some women do this."

some women DO abuse the system. more than YOU think, but fewer than aestu thinks.

his views may be misogynistic, but that bigotry aside, it's not entirely off the mark.

you're right that welfare reform is needed. I'm not sure slash and burn is the way to go, but if we can all agree on what problems actually are problems(hindered by people calling each other bigots obviously), we can start solving them.

I could say the same about your views. Your views aren't "backed up" by anything except a few very vague, possibly apocryphal anecdotes.

What "insinuated" it was that at every turn in your narrative, single mothers = good and needing help, and you make no mention of gender-neutral aid or men facing the same challenges.

Every positive conception of aid you mentioned is in the context of helping single mothers. Not single fathers. Not unattached people of either gender. In the context of dysfunctional relationships you mean exclusively women; you talk about "abuse" and "controlling".

But what is that "control"? No one can be truly controlled by anyone else unless they allow it. Now, in the case of these women, they are allowing themselves controlled because they are poor and have no skills, or perhaps because of weak character. But those are qualities that apply to men often enough, no? So why should women receive greater attention/aid? Why does your conception focus on the problems of women and not all people in such situations?

Life's affairs are zero-sum. If you give a benefit to one person, by corollary, you put everyone who doesn't receive that benefit at a disadvantage. So we must be very careful in deciding who should receive aid.

Here's how I see it. Dad is deadbeat. So Mom gets welfare. Why is Mom getting welfare? Because she's not working to give the kids cash. Why was Dad deadbeat? Because he wasn't working to give the kids cash.

How is that fair?


I didn't say or imply anything like the government should FORCE people to stay in relationships. You're strawmanning: anyone who contests your views is automatically an advocate of Shariah-like marriage law.

Life is a stream of choices. Why should a woman who happened to be in a relationship at some point receive a subsidy from the government rather than doing what everyone else has to do and striking out on her own?



Why not? It's already meddling in their lives by giving them money, isn't it? Wouldn't it be only responsible to understand the situation that's being meddled with?

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

My narrative was to exemplify the kind of familial situation (Adult + Dependent[s]) that must not be prevented from receiving help in the name of kicking deadbeats off welfare. No matter what the sins of the mother the children should not be thrown under the bus. This is true of single fathers as well, however there is a significant statistical difference between the number of single males with children on welfare and the number of single females with children on welfare.

Why the focus on families? Because that's what welfare is. It was previously Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and is now Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). There are other programs that can help single adults, but their benefits are quite strict. Food stamps to an adult with no dependents only last 3 months every 3 years, it's not the kind of thing you can stretch to live off. Even TANF has strict guidelines about work, if your kids aren't too young you must work 30ish hours a week (depends on the state).

Welfare has changed pretty radically, unfortunately the common misconceptions of it have not.




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.

If the conditions for the children were dangerous due to the parent's refusal to work (poor nutrition, unsafe and unsanitary living conditions) the caseworker might also notify Children and Youth Services. If CYS found sufficient reason to remove the children, they would be temporarily fostered. This would last until the parents completed an Investment Team Action Plan (ITAP). This ITAP would be a breakdown of the reasons why the children were removed and steps necessary for the return of the children (CYS always prefers to return children to their parents unless it is a case of extreme abuse). This plan would be signed off on by a judge. In the case in question, part of the ITAP would be stable employment. CYS differs state to state, so some things may change in your state in particular.

A few things to remember about TANF, it's temporary, and it's means-tested. If you have the means to support your family and choose not to you don't get benefits. If you are judged to be unable to support your family it's there to temporarily provide support until you can. It is also not the only program, many states offer free or reduced cost training to those receiving benefits. One of other big things with TANF is that it took the old system where the feds told the states everything and instead game out blocks of money to the states with guidelines and some rules. States were otherwise allowed to set-up their benefits individually.

Dvergar /
Quisling

You say that was what it was meant to "exemplify", but the bias was there nonetheless.

Giving the mother cash doesn't necessarily mean a better situation. I would argue that continuing to give a mother cash serves to sustain a bad situation. Maybe the child would be better off being abandoned or put up for adoption if that means that the child's life could be put on a better track?

You can't just hand out checks without thinking about the consequences.



There is also a significant statistical difference between the number of black people robbing white people and the number of white people robbing black people.

So what we do, is equality before the law.



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"?

You say "family". What, to you, makes a family?



Ah-ha. So it is both de jure sexist, and de facto subjective and biased.
How is that fair?



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.

It is also monstrously expensive.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Apparently you've skipped the parts where I said it needed reform, and the parts where I said it was temporary while (in good states) the parent received training (many programs also help with finding a job.)



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.



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.



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.



Adult + dependent.



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.



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.



Not even slightly. But, given your complete ignorance of the welfare system and CYS I can see why you'd think that.

Dvergar /
Quisling

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.



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.



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.



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?



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_budget

Welfare 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.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

http://www.theroot.com/buzz/98-welfare- ... -drug-test


oops

The article is from an ultraliberal black affairs site (in other words, they appeal to the real lowest common denominator in that ethnicity, black people who really do spend their welfare check on weed), and if you read the entire article, you see they are deliberately quoting it out of context.

Portions removed from the full context are in bold:



"The Root" (the site doing the misquoting) says it costs $178M to do all this testing for a gain of $40k:



when in reality, it's the whole welfare program that costs that much



and it appears that in fact the testing is yielding a slight gain.

When you factor in that 4% of people on welfare either refused to take the test or failed it, the savings are actually somewhat greater.

Then again, it says something about these people that they will actually lie to "help" their people by trying to make sure black people get welfare checks to spend on weed...and that the site is named after a known liar and plagiarist.

Just be glad you have me to cut through lies and bullshit for you!

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

called it.