Please provide a cite for this statement. Especially the “most” qualifier. Thanks in advance.
We live in the same television market. Trade schools are advertised every bloody 10 minutes.
From The Urban Institute, relevant portion being:
The site does acknowledge that there are long-term users of the system, no one denies that, it’s the proportion of the long-timers vs. short-timers that people usually wind up arguing about. Taken from testimony before Congress by the author. Additional work by the author, who has a PhD from studying welfare, is listed at the bottom of the article.
Gee, that took about 15 seconds and Google. There’s plenty more like that out there.
Your statement was that most people on welfare weren’t always poor. Your cite doesn’t support that.
And if this was all that happened, we would have far fewer people needing a hand up. More often, it is because they had children too soon, bought a house too soon/more house than they could afford, didn’t have insurance and/or started all of this working at jobs that are 99% of the time low paying and/or without a future.
Snort. I didn’t say plan for everything, I said that many if not most people are on welfare because they can’t be arsed to be responsible and plan ahead. And, as you well know, I am getting a pension from the government, not welfare. Lastly, I don’t despise anyone - my thinking that people should be made to take care of themselves doesn’t equal me having any emotion towards them, much less despising them.
I didn’t.
Of course I’m aware. And?
Uh huh. What is it that you are doing here then? Lots of assumptions based on no facts.
Since most are online trade schools, I imagine they are available everywhere. Besides, I was responding to your statement "If you want vocational education you now have to go to community college. "
That does not address your statement “most people on “welfare” have NOT always been poor”, unless there is something in the cite that you didn’t quote here. Also, “people leaving welfare” would include those whose eligibility ran out, but can get back on once they have a new qualifying event. And it may not even count places like here in CA that send welfare to parents with children even if the adult isn’t eligible any more.
Who are you SUPPOSED to send the welfare money to if, say, a 5 year old is eligible? The family dog?
The money is sent to the parents to use on behalf of the kids who do qualify. Do some neglect the kids and use it for themselves? Sure - some wealthy parents neglect their kids, too. The rest use it for the kids, as intended.
Would you prefer court-appointed guardians to get the money? Something else?
:rolleyes:
I don’t know if you misunderstand what I post on purpose or not, but I just don’t have enough interest to continue with this.
P.S. - when did this get moved to Great Debates?
curlcoat, let me try to explain this to you one more time:
You qualify for benefits from a government program. You receive those benefits.
People on TANF or foodstamps or Section 8 qualify for benefits from a government program. They receive those benefits.
What, exactly, is the difference here?
If you don’t approve of the program then complain about the program, but don’t fault people who qualify and follow the rules from being part of the program.
Oh, wait - you say those people should be responsible and not depend on others? Well, why didn’t you independently fund your own retirement then, instead of being dependent on others?
Frankly, I’d question the wisdom of someone who did qualify for benefits but refused to take them, seriously, who would act against their own self-interest in that manner?
I think there is a problem with people who have children with the expectation that the government will contribute to their support. Plus look at the ancillary issues such as if I have a kid 4 years old and have day-care issues I can theoretically look for work in a year when they go to school. If I have a kid, that pushes it back to five years.
I guess what my problem is with the obligation the state has to care for its citizens conflicting with the right to reproduce. I find it almost to be a form of blackmail when a person who cannot take care of their children now chooses to have another child and forces US as taxpayers to foot the bill otherwise we are the inhumane monsters letting a child suffer. Where is the personal accountability for the person to not have a kid they know they cannot support?
As you note, there is a conflict between “right to reproduce” and “take care of your children without freeloading on others”. What it comes down to is which takes precedence.
At present the rules are such that peoples’ reproductive rights are almost impossible to restrict. Under such circumstances, I believe it’s in society’s interest to see that all children have basic nutritional, medical, and educational needs met because that’s what’s going to maximize the chances of them growing up, escaping bad influences, and becoming self-supporting functional citizens.
I am under no illusions that all such children will become success stories. You can’t fix all problems.
However, leaving poor children to starve, be uneducated, and so forth is NOT going to help society at large any more than leaving potholes unfilled will improve the roads. We pay taxes to get the roads fixed, and yes, some of tax money goes to ameliorating the problems of poverty because if they didn’t the situation would be even worse than it is.
Finally, I’d like to point out that LOTS of parents of 4 year olds work. I’ve had coworkers with kids under a year old who work, who pump breastmilk at work to feed the kid at home, and so forth. Having a baby to care for doesn’t bar a person from working. The hitch is daycare. Either you let a single parent, or one parent of a two parent household, stay home and take care of the kid(s) or you subsidize daycare so poor parents can work. Or, I suppose, you could simply confiscate the children of anyone making less than a arbitrary amount per year but then you still have the problem that someone has to raise them and no one seems to have the stomach for that in any case.
Many families on assistance could provide for their children-- when they were born. Things change.
That’s why I was careful to distinguish NOW viz. getting pregnant while on welfare.
I don’t believe that you don’t understand the difference, but I’ll try to explain this to you one more time:
I worked for almost 40 years and during that time the government took money from me and (was supposed to and did in the beginning) set it aside in a pension fund. When I became eligible, I started to draw on it. This is true of most people who work here, and probably in many other countries as well.
Welfare can be and frequently is given to people who have never contributed to society and don’t plan to in the future. They did nothing to earn it, and don’t intend to pay it back. Their ideal life is to be a burden on society their whole lives.
The program needs work, but as an idea I don’t have a problem with it. It’s the fact that it has evolved into giving things to almost anyone with a hand out, and teaching them to be dependent that I have a problem with.
What makes you think either of those is true?
Pride. Not everyone’s self image allows them to take charity without serious cost.
Exactly. And WRT their right to reproduce, no one is saying they don’t have that right, we are just saying that we think exercising that right and making someone else pay for it is trampling on other peoples rights.
Well some of us on SDMB are saying that.
Yes, the “we” means those here and IRL who are tired of supporting people who choose to have children they have to know they can’t afford.
“Not paying taxes” is not a right.
If you don’t enjoy paying for poorer people’s child care, you can feel free to move to a place like Singapore, where they have a stingy welfare state and only 2% of children are born out of wedlock. Of course, they also have the lowest fertility rate of any country in the world and are going to see their population crater pretty soon…but life is about tradeoffs, I guess.
Your post is not in response to anything I said - did you mean to quote me?
What if it were more personal. Let’s say in your neighborhood, you have to give up $50/month to help support the single mother down the road. No big deal, hard times, not her fault, whatever.
But now that she is on the neighborhood dole, she gets pregnant so now you have to pay $80/month to help her. Are you OK with that? You don’t think she has a responsibility to the neighborhood to not get pregnant while you (the neighborhood) are paying her bills?
If it means the difference of having to pay $100 when the kid keeps ending up sick in the ER due to malnutrition, or $250 to give the child remedial education because if subpar daycare so he wasn’t school ready, or the $1500 to send him to juvie because mom is working three jobs and no one is around supervising, then yeah. I will.
And it’s way better than getting in the business of deciding who should be allowed to procreate and who doesn’t desrve to. Trust me, it isn’t the poor, per se, who’d be at the top of my list if I get to decide.