Originally Posted by Zoe

That does not really answer the question. Were they collecting TANF? Single mothers? Who exactly are you talking about?

I am wondering because people have been discussing welfare recipients as though all "poor" people get a check in the mail. I am familiar with poverty but have met very very few welfare recipients.

Originally Posted by Zoe

I am familiar with poverty but have met very very few welfare recipients.

Originally Posted by C-D-P

Yes I have meet a few people on welfare and they had nicer stuff than I had at the time.

Originally Posted by BillyBob

What's your point?

Originally Posted by Danik

We aren't victimizing children at all. The problem is that there is a growing number of children born by single parents who cannot care for their children, and even by couples as well. The only people being victimized are couples who are responsible and wait to have children at the right time who have to feed these fools. We have a system that supports the dumbest, most ignorant members of society at the expense of others. The stable responsible families are cutting back to live within their means and therefore having less children, while the poor pop out babies like it is their job. This type of irresponsibility cannot go unchanged, and subsidizing it is clearly not helping. If we don't support those families that doesn't mean we aren't supporting the innocent children. It means we are forcing their deadbeat mother and/or father to work.

Originally Posted by Zoe

Welfare is the price paid to discourage civil unrest.

Why do we have poor people? Because we have encouraged the export of manufacturing jobs and replaced them with low-wage service jobs. The American mantra is no longer, "we can build anything!", it is " Do you want want a coke with your Big Mac?"

And things are rapidly deteriorating. What will replace the frenzied debt ridden consumer consumption of the past 20 years? The piper must be paid. You cannot become wealthy on an hourly wage.

So what about the bit of help provided to really poor households? Yeh, we could go the way of Mexico: take away the remaining safety nets. The affluent could live in gated communities with private security and the middle class, or what is left of it, could build walls around their homes with glass chards and Rottweillers within.



HERE IS THE QUESTION:
Is that an appealing scenario? Is it a better arrangement than the crusts of bread we now give the working poor?

Originally Posted by sunnyside

Well it depends on how you define the problem. Lets go with "reducing the poverty rate".

A great thing to do would be to reduce the rate at which people who can't afford children have them. Though if you don't have a support network to raise the child and the father ditches that includes about everybody who isn't upper middle class.

I rather like the idea of sending them off to boarding school to learn a different way to live. But that's expensive.

But I think a more practical short term measure would be more daycare type options at a range of appropriate jobs. Or otherwise have cheaper access to daycare. This would let the single mothers get to work (and in situations where jobs with daycare are known to be open force them to take them).

I would also immediatly revoke all restrictions on African American babies being adopted by people of other race. This might mean more babies and children get put up for adoption and would get more out of the system. Actually I think that would help in a lot of way.

The other thing would be to try and create more jobs that pay enough to keep out of poverty. I think education could help a lot here.

Originally Posted by Zoe

My point is this: since welfare reform was enacted, "welfare" or now, TANF, is extremely limited both for income eligibility and length of time one may receive assistance. It is temporary. People who are psychologically or physically unable to work receive disability insurance. Currently, many of these people are veterans. Does anyone object to veterans receiving disability? Are we to call that "welfare" and sneer when we say it?

I think my tenant and friend is typical of the poor in America. She is Mexican, works 40 plus hours a week for 8 or $9 an hour. She has a son the same age as mine. She earns too much to qualify for medicaid but no where near enough to buy insurance. I loaned her the money to buy a car because she could not get a loan. (She is still trying to pay off a hospital bill). Do not tell me that the poor are necessarily stupid or lazy. Measured from her handicapped beginning, she has accomplished more , been more responsible than any of the irresponsible Wall St. fixers who have brought down the U.S. economy and lined their own pockets in the process.

Originally Posted by justabubba

if ignorance is bliss you must be in nirvana. you state: "We aren't victimizing children at all" by withholding welfare from their parents. nonsense. you follow with another absurdity: "If we don't support those families that doesn't mean we aren't supporting the innocent children". excuse me, if you are not providing welfare to the parents then how in the world are you still supporting the innocent children? i believe your ridiculous answer ensues: "we are forcing their deadbeat mother and/or father to work". really?! how do you know that you are not actually causing those little children to have to do without sustenance? if i had to bet, i would wager you hold yourself out as a Christian. throw away your wwjd bracelet, you have no idea what it means

Originally Posted by Raharu Haruha

And what's with the hate for wall street? Do you really think bear stearns lined there pockets when they were taken over for $2 a share? That's less than the building that they work at is worth. People who blame wall street for their troubles have no appreciation or understand of the capitalist system.