I’d say 66% pretty much defines “the vast majority” since super majority is either 3/5s or two thirds.
Again- there is no more welfare in the USA. It’s gone. ('*E’s passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E’s expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
'E’s a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn’t nailed 'im to the perch 'e’d be pushing up the daisies!
'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E’s off the twig!
'E’s kicked the bucket, 'e’s shuffled off ‘is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisibile!!
THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!)*
I know some folks love to think of people "living off welfare but other than the disabled and mothers with small children- it’s gone. **Gone since 1996. **
OK, then I’ll be specific. You are posting things about Social Security that aren’t true, so you should educate yourself on the subject before posting on it. A simple Google search will show you the error of your ways.
Wow. Are all moderators as biased as that? Or am I supposed to ask that in ATMB?
It’s no wonder there is so much ignorance here, when even moderators make such faulty assumptions.
Something else I didn’t know - never even heard of a super majority. Both of those terms seem misleading tho.
Sorry, I use the word welfare to encompass all of the handouts that are available, especially since some have different names in different states. For me, “welfare” means those things people get for free simply because they have children and fall below an income level.
Well, there’s that. I guess we are stuck paying the bills for all of these children. Maybe when the over 65 people get to the “the vast majority” things will change, since it are those on a fixed income who have the most trouble dealing with the rising taxes.
Back in the 1990’s when I worked at a clinic serving some rather unfortunate people I was involved in writing letters to restrict the right of several women to reproduce. They were extreme cases - these women had invariably killed more than one of their own children. Medical privacy laws forbid me from revealing any details so no one bother to yell “cite!”, I can’t legally give you one.
Revoking/restricting someone’s right to reproduce CAN be done, but it requires quite a bit of court proceedings and a lot of evidence of criminal conduct towards children. Suffice to say it is not done lightly these days.
There have also been instances of parents seeking to sterilize children that are not and never will be competent to care for another human being. Again, lots and lots of court involvement and justification required.
So, yes, it can be done but it is extremely difficult.
Buck v. Bell has already been mentioned.
Not a problem for me, YOU’RE the only who is always complaining about immigrants.
The point is not that the programs are similar, or even identical - the point is that both groups of people qualify for a government benefit. People on what passes for welfare these days aren’t somehow cheating, they actually ARE following the rules.
Nope. I do not complain about immigrants as a whole.
The point that has eluded you, lo these many months, is threefold:
Welfare in all its forms is a drain on the economy. Many (most?) recipients didn’t pay in near as much as they take out, and the government hasn’t been investing the taxes that go to pay for welfare as far as I know.
Social Security is not a benefit, it’s an entitlement. People who pay into the program are entitled to the payments later on. Welfare is closer to a childrens charity than it is to Social Security.
Which brings us to number three; how happy you all seem to be to continue to pay for people to have babies knowing they cannot afford to raise them. There are all of these happy thoughts about how welfare helps raise these kids to be contributing members of society, but as far as I’ve been able to find out, there have been zero studies to show if that is at all true or not. Given how common the gimme attitude is in the general population - see the Pit thread re the 14 year old’s trip to Europe - what makes you think that even a significant minority of children raised on handouts would grow up to take responsibility for themselves?
You have some very peculiar notions of how things work.
You can’t just walk into Public Aid and say “gimme welfare”. You have to fill out an application and supply documentation. If you fail to do so you will simply not receive anything from the government. Not TANF. Not Medicaid. Not foodstamps. Nothing.
You have to prove you are either working (pay stubs, tax returns, etc.), or going to school (proof of admissions required), or have a child under the designated age (birth certificate, SS#, the child his or herself, etc.).
You have to resubmit/re-prove all of that periodically. In my state, every six months. Failure to do so means termination of benefits.
So… a lot of the “checking” is done by the recipients themselves.
And if you think anyone is somehow profiting over what meager amount is given via TANF per child you obviously know nothing about that program, either.
How many years ago? That’s what you can’t seem to comprehend: the situation has changed greatly since 20 years ago. You seem to assume all is as it was 40 or 50 years ago. It’s not.
The problem is that people don’t always take medication. You can’t forget to take your Norplant or insert your IUD every other day. That’s what makes them long term birth control.
There are few medications that make you sterile, most of them actually just result in really awful things happening to the kids, such that people on them don’t want to take the risk.
The oldest unassisted conception was Mrs. George Saunders of the UK, at age 58. She had twins. At age 58. In the year *1818 *so CLEARLY she had nothing like what we’d consider “assisted reproduction”.
The oldest natural conception (she was taking hormone replacement therapy at the time, which some may count as “assistance” even if she wasn’t intending to get pregnant) was Dawn Brooke, age 59, in the UK in 1997.
Natural conception over the age of 50 is unquestionably rare but it most certainly does occur.
I’m not sure how removing government assistance somehow corrects “very poor situations” for those children.
Let’s face it, the money you spend on toilet paper is literally money you throw down the drain, and yet, what’s the alternative? Sometimes you have to spend money to clean up a mess without showing a profit, just slightly less mess.
Untrue.
SS covers the spouses of workers even when those spouses have never worked for pay ever in their lives. SS covers the minor children of recipients even though those children have obviously never worked a day in their lives. Even if you argue that the SS recipient whose spouses and children are covered were paid for by said recipient, it also covers disabled people who have never been able to work a day in their lives - you can’t claim those folks are paying into the system can you?
So? Some of us are OK with that.
No, I am not “happy” about the situation, but so far “welfare” is least awful alternative we seem to have. There was a time before welfare in this country, and poor children often didn’t survive, never got an education, were sickly, maimed by inappropriate work environments, and basically lived lives that were nasty, brutish, and short. Lives I would not subject a stray dog to, much less a human being.
Frankly, I don’t know if there have been studies done or not, but there have been some success stories. The money society spent on Ben Carson as a child on welfare paid off spectacuarly, giving the US one of the best pediatric neurosurgeons of his generation. Howard Schultz, chairman and CEO of Starbucks grew up in public housing (a.k.a. “the projects”), and the money society spent on him resulted in an extremely successful businessman who now employs thousands of other people.
Sure, just anecdotes, but maybe if you looked as some positive stories once in awhile you’d be a less unhappy and negative person. Clearly, there are some people who have amply returned society’s investment after adulthood.
(Much snipped due to it being more repeats or not having anything to do with what I have said.)
And of course none of this is hard to forge. When I say checking, I mean no one has the time/manpower to make sure all of these folks are actually working/going to school/etc.
Aside from me never even hinting that I think anyone is “profiting” on welfare, apparently you don’t know much about it either. For one thing, TANF isn’t the only source of government hand outs. For another, it is administered differently in different states, so what may be happening where you live has zero to do with here in the land of fruits and nuts.
You are the one making all of the assumptions, not me. I am well aware the whole world has changed a lot in the past 40 - 50 years.
How is this a problem? Do you think someone taking medication for a serious medical condition is going to forget to take it often enough that they could become pregnant?
The subject here is mandatory birth control for anyone wanting welfare, so they cannot bring more children into those very poor situations.
Then you shouldn’t be trying to say that SS is the same thing as welfare.
In your opinion. There are several alternatives that have been proposed that don’t take us back to the days of children starving in the streets that you won’t support because - what? - they are icky?
Snort. You are the one who insisting on insulting me and making up stories just because I don’t agree with your opinions and beliefs, so it seems that you are far more unhappy and negative than I will ever be. I am not emotionally invested in this in the least, it has almost no affect on my day to day life.
The mere fact you seem to think that every single person on the program must be followed minutely indicates your presumption that every single person on the program is a criminal.
Does the IRS audit EVERYONE who does their taxes, or only suspicious circumstances with a few random cases? Why should welfare be any different?
You certainly CAN be audited while receiving government benefits - I was, when I was receiving unemployment insurance. Why do you assume this is never done?
You’re absolute correct - there are also things like social security benefits.
Yep.
In fact, it’s pretty damn common for certain people like the mentally ill. Some people don’t like the side effects. Non-compliance for diabetes is a big problem… plenty of people make stupid health decisions. That’s why we still have people smoking cigarettes.
And the problem - for you - is that society as a whole have a very different outlet regarding reproduction than you do. Since you live in a democracy majority view prevails.
Social security office.
Never said it was, I just pointed out that it, too, is a government benefit. Why should you get government benefits and not someone else?
And those alternatives are…?
Because you never seem to actually LIST any, other than just cutting off funds entirely.
Then why do you care if poor people have kids or not?
Except that the Privacy Rule under HIPAA didn’t go into effect until April 14, 2003. Something that happened back in the 1990’s may not be covered.
Also, in order for medical records to be Protected Health Information (PHI) they must be linked to an individual.
No one knows who Broomstick is, or which clinic she may have worked in during the 90’s. Any information she shares about “Jane Doe” or “Betty Roe” most likely can’t be linked to an individual, and is not PHI.
Actually, no. Especially since I said nothing of the kind.
Do they audit random and/or suspicious welfare cases?
Unemployment benefits are a whole other thing.
It’s not like I’m the only one that feels this way, far from it. But things will never change because of knee jerk reactions like yours.
That is not a cite.
Actually, you have equated Social Security and welfare many times. And many times I’ve told you that I have no problem with people getting something they have earned.
As I said, I’ve done so many times and you just have hysterics again.
Did I say that? No, I have very specifically said that I don’t want to have to pay someone to raise a baby they had on welfare. Which still doesn’t mean I’m emotionally invested in the subject - you do understand what that means, right?
It might not. And I am sure that everyone is eager to test that point–to say nothing of the fact that violating the spirit of the law, despite technicalities, would be wrong.
I can also assure you, having worked on various personnel systems, that many companies began acting as though the privacy portion was in place as soon as it was signed, sending out compliance forms to employees as soon as the law was signed, and several with whom I worked had legally enforceable privacy compliance forms dating back to the 1980s.
Medical privacy laws existed before HIPAA. Try again.
Actually, several Dopers have met me in real life and I did attend a Doper get together at a Giordono’s in Chicago, specifically the one at 150 East Randolph Street in Chicago. A couple others have known me from other encounters in Northwest Indiana. Just because YOU have never met me in real life does not mean “no one knows” who I am.
As for the clinic, it was Family Guidance Centers in Chicago. Of course, I worked there over 20 years ago now, it’s unlikely anyone currently there was also there back then, there’s a lot of turnover in that field of care. It was a lot smaller operation back then. And I used my legal name, not my internet handle.
As I mentioned, the matter also involved the courts. It’s not just medical confidentiality, but also that involving legal proceedings. And given your past behavior you’d either ask for another cite or poo-poo any story that couldn’t be independently confirmed so what’s the point?
Of course they do. Why wouldn’t they? Yes, I’ve personally known people receiving government benefits who were audited or reported for cheating by someone else (turns out they weren’t but that was the point of the investigation, to find out).
It appears the concept of Social Security needs to be explained to someone yet again - I’ve done it before and it hasn’t sunk in.
There are TWO forms of Social Security:
RSDI/SSDI: Retirement/Survivor/Dependant Insurance or Supplemental/Survivor/Disability Insurance: This is what you currently receive, curlcoat. It is based on what you paid into the system. It can also be granted to children/spouses of recipients. IT IS FINITE. When you were working, every year you received a letter from the SSA outlining benefits available to you based on what you paid in. At some point you hopefully will outlive the benefits. If you do, you will receive:
SSI: Supplemental Security Insurance: This IS federal welfare. Period. It’s for people who have exhausted RSDI/SSDI or who do not have enough work credits to pay a sustainable living solely from RSDI/SSDI. It is a FLAT amount that is adjusted for living every January. In my neck of the woods, SSI is $733/mo for a single person, $1100/mo for a married person maximum.
Example: You receive RSDI/SSDI because you paid in for many years. Your BENEFIT (as the SSA even calls it - NOT an entitlement, a benefit) can be up to a few thousand per month.
Example: A person has a minor child. Person is seriously injured - let’s say car crash. The person has worked for many years. S/He will receive RSDI/SSDI as will the child (until age 18 or completion of high school). These benefits are based on the work quarters of the parent.
Example: Person above is in a car crash caused while comitting a felony: No one gets bupkis.
Example: Person above is in a car crash and has no work history: S/He will receive SSI. The child will also receive SSI at a much lower amount than if RSDI/SSDI was granted.
The benefits are intertwined. There aren’t two separate pots of money - one for only the “good” people who have worked their fingers to nubbins are are taking back their money only. It’s one pot divvied up depending on your situation. The money you paid in is LONG gone, issued to someone years ago as RSDI/SSDI or SSI. The money you are received is paid for by us who are currently paying into the system. The only part of it that is “YOURS” is that the amount you currently receive is based on your work history - that amount differs from person to person.
My source? ME, who works with clients who receive RSDI/SSDI every day. Who assists people in filing for benefits for children. Who stops child support when a person receives SSI (because it’s federal welfare), but sends income withholding for those who receive RSDI/SSDI.
As far as welfare goes - as has been pointed out - it, too, is finite. FIVE YEARS in a lifetime. Yes, workers DO verify if a recipient is working / going to school. Yes, there is fraud. Yes, some people are caught, some people do not. We have a pretty strong fraud team where I work, who do go out and check claims of fraud. People are charged with crimes.
Do you know how much a person with one child receives in welfare in my state?
$437.00 per month.
MAYBE another $121 in food stamps (depending on age of child)
IF she is lucky, she MAY receive child care assistance (the waiting list is currently 2 years out unless there are special circumstances). She MAY receive Section 8 housing (waiting list is 7 years out).
When you’re rollin’ in the majestic amount of $437/mo, how would you live? If you share a house, the roommate’s income is counted towards your income and that $437 shrinks, as does food stamps. So you do hair for cash. You scrap aluminum. And you live poor, usually in a crime ridden area of the city - because that’s all you can afford. And you hope you and your child don’t give up and enter a life of crime, since that’s all you see around you and - hell - they ARE rolling in cash!
It takes a STRONG person to break the cycle of welfare. If you were raised in it, it’s normal. If you were not raised to look above yourself, you don’t see any other option for yourself.
Somewhere I have a link to a federal study about welfare/child support and who receives it - I will have to find it.
things will change, since it are those on a fixed income who have the most trouble dealing with the rising taxes.