"Omelet" > wrote in message
news
> No welfare. Period. Government home work programs! If you get welfare,
> you do SOMETHING to earn it! Even if it's just sewing military uniforms
> at home...

Welfare makes a mockery of thrift.



-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

http://www.gillsmith999.plus.com/

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

"The Kat" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:53:57 -0400, "cybercat" >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> WHAT in the **** does this thread have to do with food??

Jonathan Swift: A Modest Proposal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal




-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

http://www.gillsmith999.plus.com/

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

"Wayne Boatwright" > wrote
> Reduce or eliminate welfare altogether. Let them fend for themselves.

You're a pig. This is why awful things happen to you, in case you ever
wonder.

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 19:15:19 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> wrote:

>On Sun 14 Sep 2008 09:35:19a, Omelet told us...
>
>> In article >,
>> Dave Smith > wrote:
>>
>>> > There are some who are making every effort to pull themselves up by
>>> > their bootstraps and to work or actively seek employment.
>>> > Unfortunately, they seem to be in the vast minority.
>>>
>>> I don't know what the solution is. You can't let them starve, but I
>>> resent having to help support people who will not support themselves
>>> and those who cannot support themselves and then have more children
>>> than they cannot afford. I also resent the attempts to insinuate that
>>> those who point out the obvious are passed off as sexist and racist by
>>> claiming that most welfare recipients are single white men. The facts
>>> do not support that. In fact, it is the exact opposite.
>>
>> The vast majority are the children of unwed mothers.
>>
>> Outlaw reproduction outside of wedlock?
>
>Simple choice, enforced birth control and receive welfare, or no welfare.
>I don't give a damn if they're lying in the gutters. I'm sick of paying
>for benefits that others receive. Welfare recipients in AZ have the
>benefit of AHCCCS, which provide absolutely free health care to any extent.
>Many times I cannot even afford the copay for my medications.

There are a lot of media popularized myths about welfare and those who
receive it. You might want to read up on them here. This is from the
American Psychological Society.


http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/myths.html
Myths and Facts About Welfare

The general public views poverty as the result of personal failures
and deficiencies. This perception rests on several myths. The most
prevalent are that poverty results from a lack of responsibility;
welfare leads to chronic dependency; African American women make up
the largest group of welfare recipients; welfare promotes single
parenthood and out-of-wedlock births; welfare provides a disincentive
to work; welfare creates a "culture of poverty" because recipients
share and hand down to their children a set of defective behaviors,
values, and personality traits; and welfare funds extravagant spending
by welfare recipients (Ehrenreich, 1987; Katz, 1989). These myths of
pathology translate directly to the debate of who deserves help. They
also fuel powerful stereotypical racial and gender messages. It is
mothers, especially African American and single mothers, who are
viewed as undeserving. Unwed mothers are thought to have the choice of
marriage and do not obtain the sympathy that widows have. Other groups
that are perceived as undeserving are immigrants, especially if they
are not fluent in English.

Even the term "welfare" has been pejorative, and distortions of facts
about welfare perpetuate myths about public assistance and those who
receive it. These negative myths and stereotypes reinforced the
government's agenda in cutting welfare spending to those recipients
viewed as undeserving. Reform will continue to be ineffective if those
implementing it do not separate myth from fact.

Strategies for alleviating poverty and decisions about government
spending continue to be closely linked to the perceived causes of
poverty, as well as the extent to which these causes are perceived to
be modifiable (Furnham, 1982). Poverty is seen as an individual
problem or a social issue (such as education or crime) rather than an
economic issue (such as unemployment and the economy)(Gallup, 1992).
Consequently, solutions are geared toward fixing or punishing those
individuals with the "problem." Little attention is focused on
societal factors that may perpetuate under- and unemployment, such as
inadequate education, transportation, child care, and mental health
problems.

Myth: Poverty Results From a Lack of Responsibility

Fact: Poverty Results From Low Wages

Welfare programs have been our country's response to poverty, and
everyone agrees that those programs have not solved the problem. Jared
Bernstein (1996) of the Economic Policy Institute identifies wage
decline as the crucial economic factor that has had the largest impact
on poverty rates in the 1980s and 1990s. While hourly rates of pay
have fallen for the majority of the workforce since the late 1970s, by
far the largest losses have been for the lowest paid workers.
According to Bernstein (1996), between 1979 and 1989, the male worker,
for example, at the 10th percentile (meaning 90 percent of the male
workforce earns more) saw his hourly wage decline 13 percent, and
since 1989 he lost another 6 percent. For women workers at the 10th
percentile, the decline over the 1980s was 18 percent. The low-wage
female worker gained slightly since 1989, but by 1995, her hourly wage
rate was $4.84, down from $5.82 in 1979 (all dollars are in 1995
inflation-adjusted terms).

Myth: A Huge Chunk of My Tax Dollars Supports Welfare Recipients

Fact: Welfare Costs 1 Percent of the Federal Budget

Widespread misperception about the extent of welfare exacerbate the
problems of poverty. The actual cost of welfare programs-about 1
percent of the federal budget and 2 percent of state budgets
(McLaughlin, 1997)-is proportionally less than generally believed.
During the 104th Congress, more than 93 percent of the budget
reductions in welfare entitlements came from programs for low-income
people (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1996). Ironically,
middle-class and wealthy Americans also receive "welfare" in the form
of tax deductions for home mortgages, corporate and farm subsidies,
capital gains tax limits, Social Security, Medicare, and a multitude
of other tax benefits. Yet these types of assistance carry no stigma
and are rarely considered "welfare" (Goodgame, 1993). Anti-welfare
sentiment appears to be related to attitudes about class and widely
shared and socially sanctioned stereotypes about the poor. Racism also
fuels negative attitudes toward welfare programs (Quadagno, 1994).

Myth: People on Welfare Become Permanently Dependent on the Support

Fact: Movement off Welfare Rolls Is Frequent

A prevalent welfare myth is that women who received AFDC became
permanently dependent on public assistance. Analyses indicate that 56
percent of AFDC support ended within 12 months, 70 percent within 24
months, and almost 85 percent within 4 years (Staff of House Committee
on Ways and Means, 1996). These exit rates clearly contradict the
widespread myth that AFDC recipients wanted to remain on public
assistance or that welfare dependency was permanent. Unfortunately,
return rates were also high, with 45 percent of ex-recipients
returning to AFDC within 1 year. Persons who were likely to use AFDC
longer than the average time had less than 12 years of education, no
recent work experience, were never married, had a child below age 3 or
had three or more children, were Latina or African American, and were
under age 24 (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996). These
risk factors illustrate the importance of structural barriers, such as
inadequate child care, racism, and lack of education.

Myth: Most Welfare Recipients Are African American Women

Fact: Most Welfare Recipients Are Children-Most Women on Welfare Are
White

Children, not women, are the largest group of people receiving public
assistance. Less than 5 million of the 14 million public assistance
recipients are adults, and 90 percent of those adults are women (U.S.
Bureau of Census, 1995). The majority of the recipients are White (38
percent), followed by 37 percent African Americans, and 25 percent
other minority groups (Latinos, Native Americans, and Asian Americans)
(McLaughlin, 1997). However, African Americans are disproportionately
represented on public assistance because they are only 12 percent of
the population (O'Hare, Pollard, Mann, & Kent, 1991).

Myth: Welfare Encourages Out-of- Wedlock Births and Large Families

Fact: The Average Welfare Family Is No Bigger Than the Average
Nonwelfare Family

The belief that single women are promiscuous and have large families
to receive increased benefits has no basis in extant research, and
single-parent families are not only a phenomenon of the poor (McFate,
1995). In fact, the average family size of welfare recipients has
decreased from four in 1969 to 2.8 in 1994 (Staff of House Committee
on Ways and Means, 1996). In 1994, 43 percent of welfare families
consisted of one child, and 30 percent consisted of two children.
Thus, the average welfare family is no larger than the average
nonrecipient's family, and despite considerable public concern that
welfare encourages out-of-wedlock births, a growing body of empirical
evidence indicates that welfare benefits are not a significant
incentive for childbearing (Wilcox, Robbennolt, O'Keeffe, & Pynchon,
1997).

Myth: Welfare Families Use Their Benefits to Fund Extravagance

Fact: Welfare Families Live Far Below the Poverty Line

The belief that welfare provides a disincentive to work by providing a
well-paying "free ride" that enables recipients, stereotyped as
"Cadillac queens," to purchase extravagant items with their benefits
is another myth. In reality, recipients live considerably below the
poverty threshold. Despite increased program spending, the average
monthly family benefit, measured in 1995 dollars, fell from $713 in
1970 to $377 in 1995, a 47 percent drop. In 26 states, AFDC benefits
alone fell 64 percent short of the 1996 poverty guidelines, and the
addition of food stamps only reduced this gap to 35 percent (Staff of
House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996).

Despite the ready availability of facts, myths about welfare continue
to be widespread. The media contributes to this lack of information.
The media helps shape public perceptions about welfare recipients. The
way in which a topic is reported can turn a neutral reader into an
opinionated reader and can greatly influence public opinion. Although
in an analysis of articles published in 10 major newspapers from
January 1997 to April 1997, the tone was generally sympathetic to the
poor, actual research and facts to counter myths were generally
lacking (Wyche & Mattern, 1997).

Recommendations

1. Federal and state agencies should provide newspapers and other
media with accurate information about welfare recipients and programs,
including information on welfare reform.
2. Jobs need to pay better than welfare. Rather than focusing on
welfare time limits, policy action at the state and federal levels
must address reforming the low-wage labor market by raising wages and
increasing the ability of low-wage workers to join unions and bargain
collectively.
3. Public and private agencies should collaborate more effectively
to promote and increase employment opportunities for women, especially
of hard-to-place women.
4. States should provide training for case managers and other
appropriate personnel to advocate for, support, and follow up with
clients in ways that are not adversarial or punitive during their job
search process.
5. States and federal agencies should fund and conduct research on
the impact of the transition of mothers to work on the mother and the
family and on what strategies best promote most positive outcomes for
the mothers and their families.
6. States should require and fund formative and summative
evaluations of proposed programs.

"John Kane" > wrote:

>It really sound like a good idea until you start to think of what
>happens when people get tosssed off welfare.

>Of course, a lot just die so that helps solve the problem. This is
>what happens when you just cut welfare payments not stop them
>completely.
>http://www.math.yorku.ca/SCS/Gallery...evolution6.pdf

>Or you can die of heat stroke in an apartment in Sudbury if you make a
>mistake and illegally combine welfare and student loans.

>Of course, a lot of the kids can go into the enterainment industry-
>kiddy porn sells well,

>As the kids get older they can move into real prostitution and perhaps
>some mugging and B&Es, often a favourite carreer path for young
>males.

>Drug dealing is always an attractive option particularly if it is
>combined with membership in a elite gang with cool colours.

>John Kane Kingston

I'm with you, John. The rest of these niggardly scumbags are going to hell.
Of course some of them are in Internet connection away from it now.

Wayne Boatwright > fnord
5.247:

>
> No more welfare. Work or starve.
>

So children should starve because their parents can't or won't get a job?

I certainly have issues with they way AFDC and similar programs work, but
getting rid of all "welfare" entirely is not right, especially when many of
us benefit from programs with similar ideals (mainly in the form of tax
benefits for individuals and corporations, the bulk of "welfare" spending).

Under the same logic you espouse, we should not have tax credits for having
a child, paying a mortgage, or programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social
Security.

--
Saerah (who, when I could not afford my employer-sponsored healthcare plan,
was grateful that my daughter could get inexpensive coverage via the
state's insurance plan for low-income children)

"Welcome to Usenet, Biatch! Adapt or haul ass!"
- some hillbilly from FL

Omelet > fnord
news
> In article >,
> Dave Smith > wrote:
>
>> Omelet wrote:
>> > In article >,
>> > Dave Smith > wrote:
>> >
>> >> What do you do in a case like that. He is a woman who was raised
>> >> on welfare, whose college education subsidized and received
>> >> student grants, who had the opportunity to get education and
>> >> training to help her find meaningful employment. But she knew that
>> >> the system would support her, so she intentionally got herself
>> >> pregnant knowing that she could stay home and not have to work.
>> >> That was the way she was raised, and there is a good chance that
>> >> her kid will grow up with the same mind set.
>> >
>> > That appears to be the problem in New Orleans...
>> >
>> > The Answer?
>> >
>> > No welfare. Period. Government home work programs! If you get
>> > welfare, you do SOMETHING to earn it! Even if it's just sewing
>> > military uniforms at home...
>>
>> And if they don't perform?? Fire them and let them starve? I don't
>> think so.
>
> It's called "training" babe.
>
>>
>> In the good old days they had debtors prisons, and babies were taken
>> from poor single mothers and put up for adoption. I hope there is
>> ahappy medium.
>
> My own father is a product of that. Don't think I have no personal
> experience. Dad is an adopted state confiscated orphan. It's made my
> family tree searches somewhat complicated.
>
> He has no regrets.
>
> Don't have babies you cannot support. I know that sounds ruthless, but
> people need to grow the hell up.
>

Sometimes not being able to support a child happens after that child is
born. A minimum wage job is barely enough to support one adult, let
alone an adult and a child. What do you propose for people who are laid
off from their jobs?

Unemployment is at 6% right now. Are you proposing that 6% of the
population should starve?


>>
>>
>> >
>> > NO free ride!
>
> I still stand by that.
>
> I worked my ass off to get where I am. Pardon me if I don't want my
> tax dollars to support lazy freeloaders!

Not everyone on welfare is a "lazy freeloader". You own a home. Are you
telling me you don't take the tax breaks you are afforded because you
have a mortgage?

--
Saerah

"Welcome to Usenet, Biatch! Adapt or haul ass!"
- some hillbilly from FL

wrote:
>That is one problem. The Federal minimum wage is ridiculously low and some
>states are not much better. There should be a time limit though, and
>possibly some training - job skills help. The other problem is that you
>have to WANT to do well, educate yourself, be trained and try to earn a
>living.
>OH, dignity and self esteem play here too. Or the lack of it.

Your ongoing assumption is that people on welfare consider their lives
care free and ideal. Most people on welfare turn to it as a last ditch
supplemental economic option, one of many including traditional jobs and
participation in informal or illegal economies. It has little to do with
self esteem and more to do with life costing more than low wage salaries
can purchase.

Orlando

"The Kat" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:53:57 -0400, "cybercat" >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> WHAT in the **** does this thread have to do with food??
>
> --
>

WHAT in the **** does yours have to do with food? OR ANY OF THE OTHERS IN
THIS THREAD? Hmmm, asswipe"? I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

Omelet > fnord newsmpomelet-1DBF41.15350414092008
@news.giganews.com:

> In article
> >,
> John Kane > wrote:
>
>> On Sep 14, 12:32*pm, Omelet > wrote:
>> >
>> > The welfare system rewards sloth, and fecundity.
>>
>> Cite?
>
> Oh please!
>

Most women on AFDC have the same rate (or less) of childbirth than the
average American household.

>>
>> And if it does, why? Has society made it so difficult to excape that
>> it is not even worth trying?
>
> Yes.
>

Eliminating all aid to the people who rely on it does not solve the
problem. Again, unemployment is at 6%, and you can't feed a family on
minimum wage.

>>
>> What is the breakdown of the people on welfare in your community?
>
> I live in South Texas.
>
>>
>> Just how much money do they get?
>
> Enough to survive, but I'm not happy about supporting freeloaders. Are
> you?

So you would rather children starved?

--
Saerah

"Welcome to Usenet, Biatch! Adapt or haul ass!"
- some hillbilly from FL

The Kat > fnord
:

> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:53:57 -0400, "cybercat" >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> WHAT in the **** does this thread have to do with food??
>

Food stamps buy food

--
Saerah

"Welcome to Usenet, Biatch! Adapt or haul ass!"
- some hillbilly from FL

John Kane wrote:

>
> Try spending money on programs to rehabilitate prisonners, rather than
> warehousing them. Include real vocational training.

You live in Ontario John, so you know there is a decent education
system. it is i\one of the best in the world. But there is not much
point in educating too many people to post secondary levels if there are
not jobs available for them. You end up with people who won't accept low
end jobs because they aren't good enough for them.


>> Too bad there isn't an unpopulated island somewhere where they could all be
>> shipped.
>>
> Australia is not accepting new immigrants. Oh and the Brits still have
> crime and welfare problems

FWIW, Britain only started sending prisoners to Australia after the
American Revolution because up to that point, they had been sending them
to the American colonies.

Omelet wrote:
> In article
> >,
> John Kane > wrote:
>
>> Reform the education system, put a lot , and I mean a lot, of money
>> into neo-natal cre and early childhood education, change some of the
>> labour and welfare laws that usually work to make it better to stay on
>> welfare, institute a decent health care system that covers the working
>> poor.
>>
>> Try spending money on programs to rehabilitate prisonners, rather than
>> warehousing them. Include real vocational training.
>
> Wouldn't that be nice... :-)

It sounds good in theory, except that you're often dealing with people
who dropped out because they were not interested in education.

Omelet wrote:
> In article >,
> "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>
>> You're right. Welfare is the cure for drug dealing.
>>
>> nancy
>
> <lol> Good insight Nancy!

Another thing that sounds good in theory. You will probably find that
most people that end up strung out on drugs got into them because they
already had too much spare time on their hands. Most people who are
gainfully employed and have other activities on the side don't have time
for getting wasted.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Saerah Gray" > wrote in message
>> When welfare gives you a higher net income, why work a minimum wage job?
>>
>
> That is one problem. The Federal minimum wage is ridiculously low and some
> states are not much better. There should be a time limit though, and
> possibly some training - job skills help. The other problem is that you
> have to WANT to do well, educate yourself, be trained and try to earn a
> living.



It is interesting to note that the US Senate blocked increases in
federal minimum wages for years, but over the same period they voted
themselves a number of raises totaling something like $28,000 per year,
which is about double annual income of a person earning minimum wage.

Dave Smith > fnord news:48cd9b28$0$7408
:

> Omelet wrote:
>> In article >,
>> "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>>
>>> You're right. Welfare is the cure for drug dealing.
>>>
>>> nancy
>>
>> <lol> Good insight Nancy!
>
> Another thing that sounds good in theory. You will probably find that
> most people that end up strung out on drugs got into them because they
> already had too much spare time on their hands. Most people who are
> gainfully employed and have other activities on the side don't have
time
> for getting wasted.
>
>

What, you forgot the fourth crack commandment?

--
Saerah (never get high on your own supply...)

"Welcome to Usenet, Biatch! Adapt or haul ass!"
- some hillbilly from FL

Dave Smith > fnord
:

> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>> "Saerah Gray" > wrote in message
>>> When welfare gives you a higher net income, why work a minimum wage
>>> job?
>>>
>>
>> That is one problem. The Federal minimum wage is ridiculously low
>> and some states are not much better. There should be a time limit
>> though, and possibly some training - job skills help. The other
>> problem is that you have to WANT to do well, educate yourself, be
>> trained and try to earn a living.
>
>
>
> It is interesting to note that the US Senate blocked increases in
> federal minimum wages for years, but over the same period they voted
> themselves a number of raises totaling something like $28,000 per
> year, which is about double annual income of a person earning minimum
> wage.
>

I make less than that 28 G raise, and while we don't go without anything
basic, I don't have room in my budget for much in the way of extras or
savings. I don't know how anyone making minimum wage (currently about
half of what I make per hour) gets by at all.

--
Saerah

"Welcome to Usenet, Biatch! Adapt or haul ass!"
- some hillbilly from FL

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>> On Sun 14 Sep 2008 06:10:38a, Dave Smith told us...
>>
>>> Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> First, nigs on welfare. Because
>>>>> these women can't seem to understand the concept of using birth
>>>>> control and because they appear all to eager to spread their legs to
>>>>> any Tom, Dick or Tyrone, our government is left footing the bill for
>>>>> the resulting future car thieves. A solution? Cut off all benefits
>>>>> after 1 year. Educate the ones who want it so they can find a real job
>>>>> and above all, keep up with current affairs in our nation's welfare
>>>>> program. There is no shortage of liberal ass polyps in suits out there
>>>>> lobbying for even more rights for these lazy sloths.
>>>> Contrary to your portrayal, most welfare recipients are actually single
>>>> white men. What would you suggest we do with them?
>>> This is not the first time I have seen someone make the claim that the
>>> most welfare recipients are white men. there by invalidating the common
>>> sense and anecdotal observation on the gender and race of welfare
>>> recipients as factually inaccurate and therefore false and racist.
>>>
>>> Many of them are neither men nor women. They are children. Five
>>> million of the 14 million people on welfare in the US are children. Of
>>> the adults, 38% are white, outnumbering African Americans who account
>>> for 37%. Technically there is a greater percentage of blacks on welfare
>>> than whites....1% more, but blacks make up only 12% of the population.
>>> Of the adults on welfare, 90% of them are women.
>>>
>>> In other words...... your claim that most welfare recipients are
>>> actually single white males is absolutely false.
>>>
>>> http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/myths.html
>>>
>>
>> Whatever... Maybe it's time we imposed penalties on adult welfare
>> recipients and limited the number of children a welfare recipient could
>> have to 1, also limiting the benefits they could receive. What you can't
>> afford to have, you shouldn't have. It's no wonder there are so many
>> children on the welfare rolls. One of the things that irritates me most
>> is seeing an indigent family or single mother marching into the welfare
>> office with 8 kids in tow, because most of these people are unemployed by
>> choice or lack of even the most rudimentary skills, and have no desire to
>> work. With our present system they know they don't have to, yet they
>> keep popping out kids like it ws a hobby, and they know they'll receive
>> additional benefits for each child they have.
>>
>> There are some who are making every effort to pull themselves up by their
>> bootstraps and to work or actively seek employment. Unfortunately, they
>> seem to be in the vast minority.
>
> I don't know what the solution is. You can't let them starve, but I resent
> having to help support people who will not support themselves and those
> who cannot support themselves and then have more children than they cannot
> afford. I also resent the attempts to insinuate that those who point out
> the obvious are passed off as sexist and racist by claiming that most
> welfare recipients are single white men. The facts do not support that. In
> fact, it is the exact opposite.


I think if you wish to solve the problem you are going to have to reverse
the climate started by President Lynden Johnson. Although it created a
wonderful social safety net, it also unfortunately created a welfare culture
in some parts of our society. One could however argue it it had not been
Johnson someone else would have done the same.

Below is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society

The Great Society was a set of domestic programs proposed or enacted in the
United States on the initiative of President Lyndon B. Johnson. Two main
goals of the Great Society social reforms were the elimination of poverty
and racial injustice. New major spending programs that addressed education,
medical care, urban problems, and transportation were launched during this
period. The Great Society in scope and sweep resembled the New Deal domestic
agenda of Franklin D. Roosevelt, but differed sharply in types of programs
enacted. Some Great Society proposals were stalled initiatives from John F.
Kennedy's New Frontier. Johnson's success depended on his persuasive skills,
coupled with the Democratic landslide in the 1964 election that brought in
many new liberals to Congress. Anti-war Democrats complained that spending
on the Vietnam War choked off the Great Society. While some of the programs
have been eliminated or had their funding reduced, many of them, including
Medicare, Medicaid, and federal education funding, continue to the present.
The Great Society's programs expanded exponentially under the
administrations of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.[1]

Dimitri

wrote:
>Sometimes not being able to support a child happens after that child is
>born.

Poor people can't really afford spontaneous procreation without giving
at least a thought to consistent support, education and health care
options. The days when one salary could feed five or ten mouths are long
gone.

>A minimum wage job is barely enough to support one adult, let
>alone an adult and a child.

People really need to realize this, especially when they insist on
buying everything dirt cheap. Those rock bottom prices come at a very
high cost to the American poor.

>What do you propose for people who are laid
>off from their jobs?

I suspect there's no real proposal in the offing, just a rant about how
irresponsible the poor are.

>Unemployment is at 6% right now. Are you proposing that 6% of the
>population should starve?

Most ranters of this ilk mysteriously evaporate when asked questions
like these.

>Not everyone on welfare is a "lazy freeloader". You own a home. Are you
>telling me you don't take the tax breaks you are afforded because you
>have a mortgage?

To the conservative mind, tax breaks assisting people who already work
are reinforcing the positive in our society: self sufficiency, hard
work, good fiscal planning and responsible procreation.

Orlando

wrote:
>Food stamps buy food

Not always. They're often illegally exchanged for cash to buy tobacco,
alcohol, drugs and junk food. Also, given the high surpluses most farms
endure, why is produce so expensive and why do few food banks offer
plentiful produce to people whose diets so desperately need it?

Orlando

"Dimitri" > wrote
> I think if you wish to solve the problem you are going to have to reverse
> the climate started by President Lynden Johnson. Although it created a
> wonderful social safety net, it also unfortunately created a welfare
> culture in some parts of our society.

That crippled at least three generations of Americans. Clinton's welfare
reforms were a step in the right direction and actually pretty harsh in my
opinion. But they reduced the welfare rolls.

Dave Smith wrote:
> Omelet wrote:

>> "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>>
>>> You're right. Welfare is the cure for drug dealing.

>> <lol> Good insight Nancy!
>
> Another thing that sounds good in theory. You will probably find that
> most people that end up strung out on drugs got into them because they
> already had too much spare time on their hands. Most people who are
> gainfully employed and have other activities on the side don't have
> time for getting wasted.

I was being sarcastic, in case it wasn't clear.

nancy

Moron Elgar wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 19:15:19 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
>
> http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/myths.html
> Myths and Facts About Welfare

Congratulations. You found the link I posted.




> Myth: People on Welfare Become Permanently Dependent on the Support
>
> Fact: Movement off Welfare Rolls Is Frequent
>
> A prevalent welfare myth is that women who received AFDC became
> permanently dependent on public assistance. Analyses indicate that 56
> percent of AFDC support ended within 12 months, 70 percent within 24
> months, and almost 85 percent within 4 years (Staff of House Committee
> on Ways and Means, 1996). T

Do the math here.
- 56 % of the AFDC support ended within 12 months.
- 70% within 24 months
- (almost) 85% ended within 4 years.

That makes 211% ending within 4 years. To say that 85% ended within 5
years sounds pretty good, except that this figure also includes the 70%
that ended within 24 months and the 56% that ended within 12 months.
That leaves 14% that milked it for an extra two years, 19% that were on
it for four years, and more than 15% that were still on it. In some
people's minds, having an assistance program that more than 15% of
people are still relying on welfare after four years would qualify as a
more or less permanent dependence on the support.



> Myth: Most Welfare Recipients Are African American Women
>
> Fact: Most Welfare Recipients Are Children-Most Women on Welfare Are
> White
>
> Children, not women, are the largest group of people receiving public
> assistance. Less than 5 million of the 14 million public assistance
> recipients are adults, and 90 percent of those adults are women (U.S.
> Bureau of Census, 1995). The majority of the recipients are White (38
> percent), followed by 37 percent African Americans, and 25 percent
> other minority groups (Latinos, Native Americans, and Asian Americans)
> (McLaughlin, 1997). However, African Americans are disproportionately
> represented on public assistance because they are only 12 percent of
> the population (O'Hare, Pollard, Mann, & Kent, 1991).

And as I pointed out in the response to the post about most welfare
recipients being white males, this is clearly not the case. Blacks make
up only 12% of the population but account for 37 percent of recipients,
which pretty clearly demonstrates that they are way over-represented on
welfare rolls in relation to their numbers. Of the 14 million welfare
recipients, 5 million are children, and of the other 9 million, 90% are
women..... 8.1 million, leaving us with .9 million men on welfare, and
since they indicate that 38% are white we may extrapolate that less than
half a million of the 14 million on welfare are white males.



> Myth: Welfare Encourages Out-of- Wedlock Births and Large Families
>
> Fact: The Average Welfare Family Is No Bigger Than the Average
> Nonwelfare Family
>
> The belief that single women are promiscuous and have large families
> to receive increased benefits has no basis in extant research, and
> single-parent families are not only a phenomenon of the poor (McFate,
> 1995). In fact, the average family size of welfare recipients has
> decreased from four in 1969 to 2.8 in 1994 (Staff of House Committee
> on Ways and Means, 1996). In 1994, 43 percent of welfare families
> consisted of one child, and 30 percent consisted of two children.
> Thus, the average welfare family is no larger than the average
> nonrecipient's family, and despite considerable public concern that
> welfare encourages out-of-wedlock births, a growing body of empirical
> evidence indicates that welfare benefits are not a significant
> incentive for childbearing (Wilcox, Robbennolt, O'Keeffe, & Pynchon,
> 1997).

Interesting skewing of factual information. It appears that 73% of
welfare recipients do not have larger families than non-recipients.
That leaves 27% who may have larger than average size families. Then
consider than the non-recipients are paying for their own children, and
that 90% of the adults on welfare are women..... they may not have
larger families that the rest of us, but they are having a kid or two
that they cannot support on their own.

It is fascinating that this article busts myths and then provides the
very data that proves them to have some truth behind them.

Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
>
> Your ongoing assumption is that people on welfare consider their lives
> care free and ideal. Most people on welfare turn to it as a last ditch
> supplemental economic option, one of many including traditional jobs and
> participation in informal or illegal economies. It has little to do with
> self esteem and more to do with life costing more than low wage salaries
> can purchase.




*Some* people turn to welfare as a last resort. Meanwhile, there are
lots of people out there who have no problem getting pregnant and unable
to support the children and living on welfare. Then they demand day care
and special education and training programs to get themselves back into
the work force.

Saerah Gray wrote:
>>
> I make less than that 28 G raise, and while we don't go without anything
> basic, I don't have room in my budget for much in the way of extras or
> savings. I don't know how anyone making minimum wage (currently about
> half of what I make per hour) gets by at all.

I can sympathize. My point was that, while blocking increases in the
federal minimum wage, the same legislative body voted themselves a
number of raises that amounted to more than double the annual wage of
minimum wage workers, and of course the raises were on top of the hefty
salaries they were already making.

Orlando Enrique Fiol > wrote in
:

>>Not everyone on welfare is a "lazy freeloader". You own a home. Are you
>>telling me you don't take the tax breaks you are afforded because you
>>have a mortgage?
>
> To the conservative mind, tax breaks assisting people who already work
> are reinforcing the positive in our society: self sufficiency, hard
> work, good fiscal planning and responsible procreation.

Ya...no fun at all.

Dave Smith > wrote in news:48cda5f7$0$7411
:

> *Some* people turn to welfare as a last resort. Meanwhile, there are
> lots of people out there who have no problem getting pregnant and unable
> to support the children and living on welfare. Then they demand day care
> and special education and training programs to get themselves back into
> the work force.

If they're being asked to go into the work force, they should receive
support. All the single mothers I knew who were on welfare in the 80's now
have jobs and own houses because as tight-assed as the system was, it also
provided support. Obviously someone then had no idea what they were doing,
eh?

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...

> Another thing that sounds good in theory. You will probably find that most
> people that end up strung out on drugs got into them because they already
> had too much spare time on their hands. Most people who are gainfully
> employed and have other activities on the side don't have time for getting
> wasted.
>

Dave, I'm not trying to isolate your post from the rest of some of what is
disgusting me, but I couldn't stay silent anymore. We are the fortunate
ones. We may not be rich, but we don't have to steal or sell drugs or
resort to crime to survive. Maybe some of us did at one time but have
pulled out of it now. Maybe that's why we're angry at those still taking.
I prefer to think of it as a loan. No, they might not pay it back. The
ones who abuse the system are the ones you think of when the word "welfare"
comes up. Not everyone is abusing it. Some are stuck in unfortunate
circumstances beyond their control. Some can't get health care through a
legitimate job and have kids to think of.

Ugh... I'm done. I just got sad reading some of the posts in this thread
where most of you posting think people who are poor are that way by choice.
And that we're not supposed to help them. We ARE supposed to help them. "
.... there but for the grace of God go I ..."

Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:

>
>
> I suspect there's no real proposal in the offing, just a rant about how
> irresponsible the poor are.



I can't speak for the others, but my rant was in response to your
blantant lie that most welfare recipients are white males. Nothing could
be further from the truth. The fact is that white males, despite their
major presence in our society, are one of the smallest groups
demographic groups in the welfare system.

On Sep 14, 3:47*pm, Boron Elgar > wrote:

> There are a lot of media popularized myths about welfare and those who
> receive it. You might want to read up on them here. This is from the
> American Psychological Society. [snip the rest without reading]

I rarely participate in these threads, but I take occasional quick
looks at them. This strikes me as one of the funniest things I've
seen. You ask Wayne to set aside his ignorant, unthinking positions
long enough to read something and (impliedly) learn something from a
reputable source?! Wayne?! Too funny..... -aem

Michel Boucher wrote:

>> *Some* people turn to welfare as a last resort. Meanwhile, there are
>> lots of people out there who have no problem getting pregnant and unable
>> to support the children and living on welfare. Then they demand day care
>> and special education and training programs to get themselves back into
>> the work force.
>
> If they're being asked to go into the work force, they should receive
> support. All the single mothers I knew who were on welfare in the 80's now
> have jobs and own houses because as tight-assed as the system was, it also
> provided support. Obviously someone then had no idea what they were doing,
> eh?


Yet, there are a lot of women of that generation who are still on
welfare, as are their children. Meanwhile, the rest of us went to
school, got jobs, found places to live and then had children. What
suckers we were. We could have stayed home and let others support us.
Instead, we paid higher taxes to look after them and their kids as well
as ourselves.

Dave Smith > fnord
:

> Saerah Gray wrote:
>>>
>> I make less than that 28 G raise, and while we don't go without
>> anything basic, I don't have room in my budget for much in the way of
>> extras or savings. I don't know how anyone making minimum wage
>> (currently about half of what I make per hour) gets by at all.
>
> I can sympathize. My point was that, while blocking increases in the
> federal minimum wage, the same legislative body voted themselves a
> number of raises that amounted to more than double the annual wage of
> minimum wage workers, and of course the raises were on top of the
> hefty salaries they were already making.
>
>

Oh, I got your point. I was just expounding on it from the point of view
of someone who makes a lot more than minimum wage (or what one wouild
receive on AFDC), but is still basically just getting by.

--
Saerah

"Welcome to Usenet, Biatch! Adapt or haul ass!"
- some hillbilly from FL

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 19:53:30 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>Moron Elgar wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 19:15:19 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
>>
>> http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/myths.html
>> Myths and Facts About Welfare
>
>Congratulations. You found the link I posted.

The thread has been filled with foamers. I skipped most of it. You get
hosed off below.
>

>> Myth: People on Welfare Become Permanently Dependent on the Support
>>
>> Fact: Movement off Welfare Rolls Is Frequent
>>
>> A prevalent welfare myth is that women who received AFDC became
>> permanently dependent on public assistance. Analyses indicate that 56
>> percent of AFDC support ended within 12 months, 70 percent within 24
>> months, and almost 85 percent within 4 years (Staff of House Committee
>> on Ways and Means, 1996). T
>
>Do the math here.
>- 56 % of the AFDC support ended within 12 months.
>- 70% within 24 months
>- (almost) 85% ended within 4 years.
>
>That makes 211% ending within 4 years. To say that 85% ended within 5
>years sounds pretty good, except that this figure also includes the 70%
>that ended within 24 months and the 56% that ended within 12 months.
>That leaves 14% that milked it for an extra two years, 19% that were on
>it for four years, and more than 15% that were still on it. In some
>people's minds, having an assistance program that more than 15% of
>people are still relying on welfare after four years would qualify as a
>more or less permanent dependence on the support.
>

Um..no. That isn't how the numbers are to be read....

First of all, remember that AFDC is very specific to those who have
dependent children and is a subset of those who receive "welfare."

For a given number of people receiving assistance at X point in time,
let's say, 100 of them, as that is an easy number to follow...

Within 12 months only 44 of them will still be receiving assistance.

Within 24 months, only 30 of them will still be receiving assistance.

Within 4 years (not five, mind you, but within 4), only 15 of them
will still be receiving assistance.

Of course the article makes no mention if those 15 have been
continuously on assistance all that time, or if the net % of people
who started within those 4 years may have been on and off of AFDC.

Additionally, the 155 number is quite reasonable considering that
there are any number of people who are not on or for some reason do
not qualify for much in the way of SSI or disability who will never be
able to work to support themselves - the ill, the elderly (yeah, they
might have dependent children, too), the handicapped, etc.
>> Myth: Most Welfare Recipients Are African American Women
>>
>> Fact: Most Welfare Recipients Are Children-Most Women on Welfare Are
>> White
>>
>> Children, not women, are the largest group of people receiving public
>> assistance. Less than 5 million of the 14 million public assistance
>> recipients are adults, and 90 percent of those adults are women (U.S.
>> Bureau of Census, 1995). The majority of the recipients are White (38
>> percent), followed by 37 percent African Americans, and 25 percent
>> other minority groups (Latinos, Native Americans, and Asian Americans)
>> (McLaughlin, 1997). However, African Americans are disproportionately
>> represented on public assistance because they are only 12 percent of
>> the population (O'Hare, Pollard, Mann, & Kent, 1991).
>
>And as I pointed out in the response to the post about most welfare
>recipients being white males, this is clearly not the case. Blacks make
>up only 12% of the population but account for 37 percent of recipients,
>which pretty clearly demonstrates that they are way over-represented on
>welfare rolls in relation to their numbers. Of the 14 million welfare
>recipients, 5 million are children, and of the other 9 million, 90% are
>women..... 8.1 million, leaving us with .9 million men on welfare, and
>since they indicate that 38% are white we may extrapolate that less than
>half a million of the 14 million on welfare are white males.

And what point are you trying to make?
>
>
>
>> Myth: Welfare Encourages Out-of- Wedlock Births and Large Families
>>
>> Fact: The Average Welfare Family Is No Bigger Than the Average
>> Nonwelfare Family
>>
>> The belief that single women are promiscuous and have large families
>> to receive increased benefits has no basis in extant research, and
>> single-parent families are not only a phenomenon of the poor (McFate,
>> 1995). In fact, the average family size of welfare recipients has
>> decreased from four in 1969 to 2.8 in 1994 (Staff of House Committee
>> on Ways and Means, 1996). In 1994, 43 percent of welfare families
>> consisted of one child, and 30 percent consisted of two children.
>> Thus, the average welfare family is no larger than the average
>> nonrecipient's family, and despite considerable public concern that
>> welfare encourages out-of-wedlock births, a growing body of empirical
>> evidence indicates that welfare benefits are not a significant
>> incentive for childbearing (Wilcox, Robbennolt, O'Keeffe, & Pynchon,
>> 1997).
>
>Interesting skewing of factual information. It appears that 73% of
>welfare recipients do not have larger families than non-recipients.
>That leaves 27% who may have larger than average size families. Then
>consider than the non-recipients are paying for their own children, and
>that 90% of the adults on welfare are women..... they may not have
>larger families that the rest of us, but they are having a kid or two
>that they cannot support on their own.

You are having trouble with numbers again. That 27% also includes
those who have families equal to the average number of children. There
is nothing that points to that 27% having larger families than the
average.
>
>It is fascinating that this article busts myths and then provides the
>very data that proves them to have some truth behind them.

Well, if you were a bit more adept at understanding numbers, you might
have a more comfortable knot in your knickers.

Want to talk about WI now? Go look up what percentage of children in
this country, age eligible, are covered by WI.

Boron

"Cheryl" > wrote in message
news
> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Another thing that sounds good in theory. You will probably find that
>> most people that end up strung out on drugs got into them because they
>> already had too much spare time on their hands. Most people who are
>> gainfully employed and have other activities on the side don't have time
>> for getting wasted.
>>
>
> Dave, I'm not trying to isolate your post from the rest of some of what is
> disgusting me, but I couldn't stay silent anymore. We are the fortunate
> ones. We may not be rich, but we don't have to steal or sell drugs or
> resort to crime to survive. Maybe some of us did at one time but have
> pulled out of it now. Maybe that's why we're angry at those still taking.
> I prefer to think of it as a loan. No, they might not pay it back. The
> ones who abuse the system are the ones you think of when the word
> "welfare" comes up. Not everyone is abusing it. Some are stuck in
> unfortunate circumstances beyond their control. Some can't get health
> care through a legitimate job and have kids to think of.
>
> Ugh... I'm done. I just got sad reading some of the posts in this thread
> where most of you posting think people who are poor are that way by
> choice. And that we're not supposed to help them. We ARE supposed to help
> them. " ... there but for the grace of God go I ..."
>

There you go. The response of a human being. Way to go!

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:14:30 -0400, "Cheryl"
> wrote:

>"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
m...
>
>> Another thing that sounds good in theory. You will probably find that most
>> people that end up strung out on drugs got into them because they already
>> had too much spare time on their hands. Most people who are gainfully
>> employed and have other activities on the side don't have time for getting
>> wasted.
>>
>
>Dave, I'm not trying to isolate your post from the rest of some of what is
>disgusting me, but I couldn't stay silent anymore. We are the fortunate
>ones. We may not be rich, but we don't have to steal or sell drugs or
>resort to crime to survive. Maybe some of us did at one time but have
>pulled out of it now. Maybe that's why we're angry at those still taking.
>I prefer to think of it as a loan. No, they might not pay it back. The
>ones who abuse the system are the ones you think of when the word "welfare"
>comes up. Not everyone is abusing it. Some are stuck in unfortunate
>circumstances beyond their control. Some can't get health care through a
>legitimate job and have kids to think of.
>
>Ugh... I'm done. I just got sad reading some of the posts in this thread
>where most of you posting think people who are poor are that way by choice.
>And that we're not supposed to help them. We ARE supposed to help them. "
>... there but for the grace of God go I ..."


Thank you, Cheryl.

Boron

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 17:20:09 -0700 (PDT), aem >
wrote:

>On Sep 14, 3:47*pm, Boron Elgar > wrote:
>
>> There are a lot of media popularized myths about welfare and those who
>> receive it. You might want to read up on them here. This is from the
>> American Psychological Society. [snip the rest without reading]
>
>I rarely participate in these threads, but I take occasional quick
>looks at them. This strikes me as one of the funniest things I've
>seen. You ask Wayne to set aside his ignorant, unthinking positions
>long enough to read something and (impliedly) learn something from a
>reputable source?! Wayne?! Too funny..... -aem


Who implied that Wayne was ignorant or unthinking? Are you insane as
well as stupid?

And yeah, honey, the APA is reputable. If you have numbers to refute
what they say, let's see them. If not, STFU.

Boron

"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:14:30 -0400, "Cheryl"
> > wrote:
>
>>"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
om...
>>
>>> Another thing that sounds good in theory. You will probably find that
>>> most
>>> people that end up strung out on drugs got into them because they
>>> already
>>> had too much spare time on their hands. Most people who are gainfully
>>> employed and have other activities on the side don't have time for
>>> getting
>>> wasted.
>>>
>>
>>Dave, I'm not trying to isolate your post from the rest of some of what is
>>disgusting me, but I couldn't stay silent anymore. We are the fortunate
>>ones. We may not be rich, but we don't have to steal or sell drugs or
>>resort to crime to survive. Maybe some of us did at one time but have
>>pulled out of it now. Maybe that's why we're angry at those still taking.
>>I prefer to think of it as a loan. No, they might not pay it back. The
>>ones who abuse the system are the ones you think of when the word
>>"welfare"
>>comes up. Not everyone is abusing it. Some are stuck in unfortunate
>>circumstances beyond their control. Some can't get health care through a
>>legitimate job and have kids to think of.
>>
>>Ugh... I'm done. I just got sad reading some of the posts in this thread
>>where most of you posting think people who are poor are that way by
>>choice.
>>And that we're not supposed to help them. We ARE supposed to help them.
>>"
>>... there but for the grace of God go I ..."
>
>
> Thank you, Cheryl.
>
> Boron

oNe more thing while I'm up here on my soapbox. If we are all out for only
our own welfare, we are not evolved from the animals we once were. Only
humans can feel something for others, whether fellow humans or animals or
the earth we live on.

DONE.

In article >,
says...
>
> "hahabogus" > wrote
>
> > The idea is to break this cycle in welfare recipience. It is a well known
> > cycle...the problem is the fix hasn't been found yet.
>
> Where I live they put a 5 year lifetime limit on welfare. Last
> I heard, you didn't get extra funds if you had additional children
> after you were on welfare. That's a simple overview, but you
> get the idea. Training programs were set up for people who
> needed it.
>
> It might not be perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.
> Nothing wrong with If you can work, work.
>
> nancy
>
>

Huh, RI is even stingier. You only get 2 years here but here's the dirty
little secret. While they won't pay the adults to stay on the dole they
sure as shit pay for the kids until they hit age 18.

On Sep 14, 5:47*pm, Boron Elgar > wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 17:20:09 -0700 (PDT), aem >
> wrote:
>
> >On Sep 14, 3:47*pm, Boron Elgar > wrote:
>
> >> There are a lot of media popularized myths about welfare and those who
> >> receive it. You might want to read up on them here. This is from the
> >> American Psychological Society. * [snip the rest without reading]
>
> >I rarely participate in these threads, but I take occasional quick
> >looks at them. *This strikes me as one of the funniest things I've
> >seen. *You ask Wayne to set aside his ignorant, unthinking positions
> >long enough to read something and (impliedly) learn something from a
> >reputable source?! *Wayne?! *Too funny..... * * -aem
>
> Who implied that Wayne was ignorant or unthinking? *Are you insane as
> well as stupid?
>
Wayne's posts, that you're replying to, demonstrate that he's ignorant
and unthinking. I was chortling at the futility of your trying to get
him to read and learn. -aem

In article >,
says...
> In article >,
> Dave Smith > wrote:
>
> > What do you do in a case like that. He is a woman who was raised on
> > welfare, whose college education subsidized and received student grants,
> > who had the opportunity to get education and training to help her find
> > meaningful employment. But she knew that the system would support her,
> > so she intentionally got herself pregnant knowing that she could stay
> > home and not have to work. That was the way she was raised, and there is
> > a good chance that her kid will grow up with the same mind set.
>
> That appears to be the problem in New Orleans...
>
> The Answer?
>
> No welfare. Period. Government home work programs! If you get welfare,
> you do SOMETHING to earn it! Even if it's just sewing military uniforms
> at home...
>
> NO free ride!
>

Here's somethign to chew on. What happens when you have people living in
poverty who can't get any help or better yet find a job maybe because
they're poorly educated, maybe because they have so many kids it's
nearly impossble?

I'll tell you what happens. Crime rates go UP.

Enjoy your new life.