Welfare, the deserving and the truly needy...

I thought WIC and AFDC was something like 6% or less. I’ll have to go find that info again. Why wouldn’t we exclude SS? It’s not designed to help poor people alone. If you’re talking about unwed mothers, I don’t think it’s fair to lump in money that goes to the elderly and the disabled.

pervert, there might very well be people who have children to get more money from Uncle Sam. But how representative are they? What percentage of the families aided by poverty programs do you know (or think) have done this? It’s simply not appropriate, either in a debate or in setting national policy, to use the worse abusers or anecdotal evidenceas examples. As for this practice of getting pregnant to up one’s benefits, it’s a terrible strategy, as welfare is designed merely to alleviate suffering, not set someone up for a cushy life. And it costs more to raise a child than the money the government will ever give you for it.

Okay, I have some data from 1995 to shed some more light on these wild breeders. Sorry it’s a bit dated. Let us take comfort in the fact that the substantial welfare reforms happened after this period. In other words, this was back in the “Bad Old Days.”

The average number of children in an AFDC family was 1.9. Hardly seems like people were having huge broods of children. Three out of four AFDC recipients got off of this aid within two years. Only 15 percent stayed on AFDC for more than five years. That doesn’t seem to me that welfare families were making it a “way of life.” One study showed that among women who got welfare at any time during a two year period, the typical mom held 1.7 jobs during that time. 44% held two or more jobs. Hardly a bunch of lazy women shirking work.

I do not get any money, not counting “additional”.
We get a food card,which gets filled upat the grocery storeeach month.
A.M.
I get up, feed my son, we take him toschool.
I then clean the house, eat breakfast, sometimes do laundry,
go tothe grocery or dollar store (where I get our toiletries),
read my bible, callplaces and ask if they are hiring ( a Burger King opened 2 blocks from my house a bit ago.I called their job line every day, gave my number,put 2 aplications in-no reponse ever)

Then I make my dad lunch (he is 89 tomorrow and can hardly walk,without us here, I fear nothing would ever be cleaned or no garbage taken out).

Watch the local news.
Pick my son up from school.
We may go soemwhere after school, especially if its warmout, he’d taken to going to the park(a 5 minute walk from our condo) to feed the geese.
I helpwith homework, make supper, then while he watches tv, I actually go online,if thats okay with you.

:slight_smile:

any more questions?

Thanks for the response. No more questions. I’m glad you are able to help your dad out, and that you and your son have so much time to be together. Best of luck to you, and I hope your job search is a success soon.

I agree with you Cranky, I was not trying to suggest that most or even a significant proportion of welfare recipients are abusers. I am only suggesting that looking at limits is perfectly reasonable. For instance, could we argue that having more than 10 children while on welfare could be construed as evidence of unfitness to raise kids?

This assumes a level of care that may not be in evidence. The case I am talking about involved some serious delusions about what a decent life for the children looks like.

Ok, but I though we were talking about programs which help the poor. If you are going to say “What a small percentage of that money taken from you “at gunpoint” goes towards support for the poor” perhaps you should have specified you meant only those programs which were specifically designed and means tested for aiding the poor. Social Security includes several benifits for people who can no longer earn a living.This site describes the social secutiry benifits Many of these clearly benifit “aide the poor”.

It seems from your last post that you want to concentrate on ADFC. Is this accurate?

Meanwhile, I think it is important that I point out that the number I quoted above are the Federal budget only. They contain nothing in regards to what variaous states pay for various programs.

Sorry about the typos. the “benifit” before the quote should be ignored.

OK, I think I should make one thing clear. I don’t think that the majority of mothers on welfare are “popping them out” for the sake of the check, or that the majority of welfare recipients are lazy.

My argument is that the way the welfare system is administered, it, whether by design or unfortunate accident, seems to favor those who are indolent or have made irresponsible choices. By making the process of applying for/receiving aid so complicated, and by making income requirements for eligibility artificially low (in areas where the cost of living is extremely high, the true cost of apartment rent, for example, is not taken into account when considering eligibility), the “system” makes it extremely difficult for people who are working but can’t seem to make ends meet, people who are underemployed and seeking to better themselves by seeking education or job training, or the unemployed who are genuinely seeking employment and need to spend those hours that would be otherwise spent “pounding the pavement”, or on the phone or online seeking a job, sitting in an office waiting their turn to talk to a worker to get much-needed assistance. Thus, the people who have nothing better to do than sit in a waiting room, then go across town to sit in another waiting room are the ones who have the easiest time getting aid. Someone who is willing to “work” four or five days a month doing this can get aid fairly easily, compared to someone who has responsibilities such as work or school to meet.

I certainly wouldn’t begrudge a mother who has been abandoned by the father of her children financial assistance to feed and clothe them, but the way the system is set up, it rewards irresponsibility and indolence. A working single mother probably doesn’t have time available to take off work in order to apply for food stamps and utility assistance. Right now in Nevada, you have to wait for hours to fill in an application, then stand in line to set up an appointment two weeks later to talk to a worker. My mom was turned down for food stamps because she arrived on time for her appointment, accidentally got in the wrong line to turn in her paperwork, had to go wait in another line, which made her “late”, even though she had arrived in plenty of time, and the worker put her down as a “no-show”. Had she been working a low-wage job at the time, she would have had to reschedule and then take a second day off work that month to go back to the food stamp office.

Fortunately, she has a reasonably good-paying job now (hope she keeps it, Las Vegas is the Land of the 89-Days Wonder), so our financial situation has improved enough that, aside from my county medical card, we don’t need public aid.

I suppose it’s possible. However, if they felt I was “faking”, the situation could be easily resolved by doing a thorough examination and sending me for the appropriate tests to determine what, if anything, was wrong with my back. If I was faking, then the tests would prove that. As the situation stands, I had to battle to get an appointment with a doctor who would even examine my back, let alone send me for the proper tests.

Cranky:
You didn’t provid a link for your stats, so I have to ask: what’s the std deviation? An average, by itself, is a meaningless statistic.

pervert: Ah, I see. And you’re right, there are certainly troubling cases out there. I believe they are the exception, not the rule, but there are certainly flaws in the system that don’t catch those people and don’t always provide appropriate incentives for behaving in a way society probably wants. I focus on AFDC because we’re talking about helping families with children. You’re right, it doesn’t cover all aid that gets to poor families, and we can’t ignore state money. The picture of a Doper being bled dry by IRS goons while all his tax money is merrily distributed to lazy deadbeats with good birthing hips never fails to rankle me, though. Tax dollars go to lots of questionable stuff, much of it less compelling than feeding kids who might otherwise be hungry–but welfare mothers have been in the crosshairs since certain politicians and segments of the media put distorted data out there. Since I think that level of blame is based on misinformation, I get, well, Cranky. You were more gracious in your response than I deserved. Thank you.

Thea Logica I think you’re dead right about parts of the system being very screwed.

John Mace 'Twasn’t an online source, and unfortunately it’s a secondary source so I don’t have access to median/mode/SD. They would certainly paint a more complete picture. It’s from a Pennsylvania Dept of Public Welfare publication comparing PA AFDC recipient characteristics to those of national AFDC recipients.

Minor quibble–I’d say means are incomplete without such data, but not meaningless. That goes too far. Means give you a number that you didn’t have before (even if a lack of measures of distribution is frustrating and erodes confidence in what the mean truly shows). I’d be especially leery or dismissing a mean as “meaningless” when we know one endpoint of the distribution and the mean is quite close to it (we know families cannot have negative children). I’m now curious to know whether they counted childless families, or excluded everyone with a zero value for children.

Oh for heaven’s sake, I am a moron. Seeing as these are AFDC statistics, I think I can assume that families with no dependent children were excluded. Duh. Must remember to connect brain before posting.

Oh, seems I had 1994 statistics. But found them online.
They list the average # of kidlets as 2. Not sure why the PA report had them at 1.9. 1995 stats are comparable.

42.6% had one child
30% had two children
15.6% had three children
6.2% had four or more
3.4% had five or more.
1.5% were unknown.

Their sample was a little over 7,000 AFDC families.

I suppose this is true but I don’t think these are means-tested per se. And, my guess is that they are a fairly small fraction of the program compared to the retirement benefits, although I don’t know this for a fact. I imagine one could find the breakdown somewhere.

You are asking for a broad stroke brush statistic and you are correct to do so. I don’t qualify my broad stroke statement each time this discussion comes up because I assume the reader understands there are people who are struggling to make ends meet and then there are the “lifers”. Shades exist for everything in between but I’m sure you see both ends of the scale. I refer to the person who works the system out of ignorance and family history. I have many friends in the health care system who deal with young ladies (children) and it is a common experience to have a 13-15 year old ask how to get on welfare (prior to having a child). That is the cycle I refer to and that is what has to be dealt with.

Someone who loses a job and needs temporary help is exactly what welfare should be used for and I expect my taxes to fund this. It is a buffer that follows after unemployment insurance runs out. In my perfect world you would get 6 months to a year of unemployment and then 2 years of welfare assistance. After that it’s time for the Government to review the situation to ensure children aren’t being dragged down.

My personal views of long-term recipients may be skewed because I live in a large city. The people I come into contact with do not jive statistically with what has been posted.

Don’t be so sure that they will find a cause, or even be able to eliminate the possibility that you’re faking.

I was in a car accident a year ago, and have suffered severe back pain ever since.

It’s soft tissue damage. It didn’t show up on the MRI or other scan (I can’t think of the name) that I had done.

The insurance company is calling me a liar. I’m in pain, but I can’t prove it, and I’ve had every test under the sun.

Certainly, some of those receiving those benefits are poor.But many ( possibly most) are not. While social security does include benefits for those who can no longer earn a living, such as the disabled, or those who have lost a source of support (such as dependents), they need not be poor to be eligible. If I become disabled enough to receive social security benefits, I will be eligible for a benefit and so will each of my dependent children. And it doesn’t matter that I will also be receiving a disability pension or that my husband is still employed, or how much we have in the bank or how much property we own. Only that I can’t work anymore, and paid into SS for the required amount of time. Retirement benefits can be received even while a person is still working. Just because SS almost incidentally helps some poor people doesn’t make it support for the poor.

Well, as for anything, that depends on what you call poor. I could not find a good cite for the breakdown, but 1 statistic I did find claimes that 1/3 of our seniors rely on social security for 90% of their income. This certainly sounds like a fair number who would be very close to destitute without social security. At that, we are only talking about retirement benefits.

But even leaving Social Security out of the equation altogether does not reduce the amount spent on the poor to a small percentage of the money collected in taxes. From my earlier post “There is a “Total Means Tested” column which amounts to 286.1 billion or 2.8 percent of GDP.” This amounts to 15% of the government expenditures. Again, this is not all spending on the poor, it is only federal. And if we are to ignore social security because it is a retirement savings plan, not a tax, then we should probably reduce the total expenditure by about 400 billion. So perhaps spending on the poor is closer to 20%? Either way, it is certainly not “a small percentage”.

Darn it! I had a response eaten by the board last night.

pervert, I think your numbers are probably pretty reliable. I found my source for the “6%” figure which has been rattling around in my head. It was the White House site. It excluded Medicare and Medicaid (and SS) and included only the other means-tested programs. Add Medicaid and we get to 13%. However, I suspect this underreports the true cost of the many overlapping programs designed to help the needy. So you’e convinced me with the 20%.

To clarify my stance on what’s excluded…For the purposes of this argument, I think programs for senior citizens should be excluded, because what I’m focusing on is the charge that our tax dollars are going to lazy, incompetent, indolent people. It would be a stretch, I think, to put retired people and vets in that category.

At any rate, you’re right. 20% is not a “Small” percentage of our (federal) tax dollars. What it comes down to, perhaps, is a personal judgment of how much is too much. Being soft-hearted, I’m not too uncomfortable with 20 cents of every tax dollar going to help the needy. We’re a compassionate and prosperous society. But for others, that’s too high. That I get.

Regardless of my judgment, the known inefficiencies and the certain existence of “undeserving” recipients indicate that the total amount of money dedicated to these programs could be smaller without sacrificing compassion. And I’d be happier (wouldn’t we all) if assistance helped more people work their way out of neediness and stay out of it. That’s for sure.

Even with such problems, I think there is significant evidence that the most condemning assessments of aid to the needy (i.e. welfare goes to irresponsible undeserving breeders; welfare is merely a contract with women to bring more paupers into the world) are unfair and inaccurate. I’m grateful that the mjority of folk who have posted here seem interested in exchanging information and ideas so we’re all better informed, no matter whether we’re bleeding heart liberals or “pull yourself up by the bootstrap” types.

For my part (a pull yourself up by the bootstraps type;)) I agree that the argument that welfare is congested with young women having several handfuls of kids is quite misleading. Our news media is so hooked on sensational stories that its hard to get accurate pictures.

Was it in this thread that I proposed linking welfare benefits to any amount the recipient could produce on their own? The idea would be to have a safety net income level. Let’s say $10,000 because its round, below which we would help people. For every dollar the recipient can earn we would increase this minimum level say $0.25. So if a person was truly indegent we would give him $10,000 a year. If the person earned $5000 in that year, we would give him 11250 - $5000. So his total income would be 11,250, but the total outlay from the government would also go down. We could also extend any time limits. So if a person collected the whole 10,000, then he could only do so for, lets say, 10 years. But for every dollar they contibute they get a direct increase in this time limit. So if the person was able to contribute $5000 each year (or half of the minimum), we would double this time limit to 20 years. Perhaps we could include similar money or time credits for good grades at accredited schools.

Have any of you heard of any other plans to encourage people get themselves off welfare?

pervert, we’re being so cordial to each other, acknowledging each other’s points and so on, I half expect moderators to sweep in here and ban us both for not participating in Great Debates in the manner expected. It just feels like we’re not doing this right, somehow. :wink: