My goat for today

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I used the term "WIC" as to mean food stamps or whatever the heck you want to call it.

It used to be "Food Stamps", then WIC came around to cost us more money. No difference

in my mind. Like was said, just another transfer of money from one class to another and

raises costs for everyone in the log run.

[Motasyco]

It bothers me when I'm in the checkout line buying hamburger with my hard earned money and the person in front of me whips out their government card to pay for their ribeye steaks. And it's unbelievable that they can buy nonsense like energy drinks with the card. What we consider to be the poverty level in our country would be considered luxury living in some other countries. Just a guess but I suspect most households in public housing have the latest video games with wide screen TVs and use top of the line smart phones. Just my opinion.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I agree, Dolomite

When I was working at TN Dept of Human Services about 1974-1977, they started rolling out heavy effort to go after fathers of welfare clients. Hiring lawyers to chase em down interstate. Attaching wages, refusing to renew drivers licenses if they are in arrears, that sort of thing. If I recall, they tried to make it more difficult for moms to get benefits if there was suspicion that they may have known the father but were unwilling to name him.

I think they still try to do that, but there are so many no-count deadbeat dads it is a serious game of whack-a-mole.

One aspect that kinda rubbed me the wrong way-- Duno if it is the same today-- Ain't saying it was right or wrong, just seemed kinda raw-- If for instance a woman would have a quasi-deadbead ex who would pay pretty good when he was working, or pay pretty good "when he felt like it"-- In order to receive state benefits, all the child support had to be paid direct to TNDHS. So maybe if the child support was $2000 a month and welfare was $200 a month-- The state collected the $2000 per month and the mom only got the $200 a month welfare check.

But maybe if the mom went off welfare and the welfare lawyers didn't wield the big stick on the ex, then the ex would fall behind or quit paying anything at all, forcing mom back on welfare. That was still in times where the average mom was more likely to be a stay-at-home mom rather than a career woman. A woman who had been a middle class stay-at-home mom til middle age, then hubby runs off with the secretary and slacks on child support and alimony "out of spite". Such a woman was not in a good position to find work that would support the kids.

It just seemed to me in cases like that-- Sure it probably makes sense that the state would keep some of the excess child support payments for "operational expenses". But the mom and kids in that situation ought to get at least a little bit of the child support overage. A little more than the bottom-dollar standard welfare rate paid to moms who didn't even have a clue who the father might have been. Or so it seemed to me.

Long-term poor folks tend to have weaker family bonds regardless of welfare. Things get tough enough and folks are more likely to split. Often, not always but often, people are long-term poor because they are "well-meaning but chronically doofus" or they have some kind of personality flaw that keeps em poor and ain't likely to improve. Some folks are not very good at learning to correct mistakes, and it might be impossible to teach common sense. Somebody either has common sense or they don't. Just saying, the same factors that keep some folks long-term poor also tend to break up more families.

However, old-time long ago welfare policies directly contributed to gradual weakening of families, which was at first most evident among the poor and then gradually became "acceptable and common-place" in the middle class and wealthy.

Maybe welfare policies are a little different nowadays, in some places. The attitude and policies up thru the mid-1970's were real hard-tail-- Taxpayers would be outraged if even a penny of welfare went to support a dad in hard times, even if the family was literally starving out on the street. So if a man was unable to feed his family, the only way for the family to get help was for hubby to bug out. TNDHS had just recently stopped "midnight raids" checking for men in the house when I started in the 1970's. If they caught a man in the house late at night the family would get terminated or at least in bad trouble.

I think those early policies are what "got the ball rolling" making a single-mom family commonplace and acceptable among many po folks, of all races. It may have been politically-infeasible to deliver short-term welfare to intact family units back then. Maybe the voters wouldn't have stood for it. But at least short-term help for intact families, I think, might have at least reduced the pressure toward single-mom families becoming the norm rather than the exception in some communities.

Edited February 8, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[Mdunntn]

I used the term "WIC" as to mean food stamps or whatever the heck you want to call it.

It used to be "Food Stamps", then WIC came around to cost us more money. No difference

in my mind. Like was said, just another transfer of money from one class to another and

raises costs for everyone in the log run.

No difference? You get baby formula, juice, bread, eggs, fruit, cheese and cereal. It is also strict on the brands and type that you get. So...

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

[Links2k]

There are people who truly benefit from the system but there are those who view the welfare system as a reason to have a kid.

Dolomite

Dolomite I am not questioning your statement, but your statement blows my mind because of the hard work that I know it takes to raise successful children. Given the amount of work that it takes to properly nurture children I can't imagine someone having a baby just to get a couple of hundred bucks per month.

Your statement did open my eyes a bit and answer some simple questions for me. Have a child, get the check, dump the baby on the society and when you want a pay raise just go have another baby. Devastating!

[Links2k]

Another big problem I have is those who are married are penalized while those who just live together aren't.

If a man and women have a child, live together and then never get married they get more benefits than those who are married. We have made it too easy for parents to live as a married couple yet receive the beneifts of being a single parent.

If I had my way a paternity test would confirm the child's father before ANY benefits are received. And any benefits received by the parent for a child are taken from the other parent on a dollar for dollar basis unless the parents of the child are married. Also, anyone receiving any type of government benefits should relinquish back to the government any income tax refund they receive. It shouldn't matter if the refund is $1 or $5,000 it should be returned.

I know of one lady, she was a good friend of my wife's. She lived with her boyfriend for years and years, well over a decade. They lived in the same residence and shared everything as if they were married. Now during tax time only she claims her kids and receives, on average, a $5,000 return because she is a "single" mother. And this is not a rare occurance because there is more incentives for a mother to live single.

Dolomite

I agree with you on the tax refunds. I have to write a additional check every year to cover taxes and then I have relatives that don't do crap and they reap a windfall at the beginning of every year. This irritates the crap out of me.

Edited February 9, 2012 by LINKS2K

[TMF]

Dolomite I am not questioning your statement, but your statement blows my mind because of the hard work that I know it takes to raise successful children. Given the amount of work that it takes to properly nurture children I can't imagine someone having a baby just to get a couple of hundred bucks per month.

It seems to defy all logic that someone would do that but it seems to be the case. Another contributing factor is the lifestyle and upbringing of those who are on government assistance from the time they enter this world 'til the time they leave it. It's become a culture of sorts. Many people that use government assistance are those who fall on hard times and are doing what they can to get back on track, because they don't want to take money that isn't theirs unless they have to. That is what the system is designed for.

However, there are those that have no shame that feel entitled to that money and make no effort to earn it on their own. Those people have no self respect and that is their own curse. They will spend the entirety of their life sucking of society and making nothing of themselves, and breed at a faster rate than those of us who choose to support our offspring, thus continuing the cycle at an exponential rate. I wouldn't trade places with them, ever.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I'm surprised a culture of numerous babies and dependence has lasted so long.

Only reason I say that-- In the early 1970's there were many hereditary poor mamas with 6 kids. At that time, the AFDC check would pay $96 for one kid and it would pay nearly $200 for six kids. That was the max. If somebody had more than 6 kids they didn't get any bigger check.

The young gals, descendents of the six + kid hereditary poor families, had access to free birth control and didn't seem especially inclined to become brood mares. It wasn't too difficult to talk some of the young ladies aged 16 to 19 to get the tubes tied after only two illegitimate kids.

So dunno what went wrong after I gave it up as hopeless and quit in disgust around 1977.

Edited February 9, 2012 by Lester Weevils