Man...whenever I see those anti-Welfare posters I turn into someone I usually am not. And wish something really bad happens to those people, that causes them to end up on welfare. And then see how to get out of it again. THEN come back and talk.

No, I am not on Welfare. No, I have never been. But I know how hard life can be at times and being social, wanting to help others out who are not so well off as you (you are lucky) is not a bad thing. Pretty sad the attitude in the US where most people look down on people on Welfare so much

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Simple solution, free abortion on demand.

Very few of these girls want abortions even if they were paid to get them. They want unconditional love and see a baby as they only way to secure it.

Is that it? Sheesh. Why didn't anyone say so?!? We'll get them a puppy, instead!

So glad we've got that problem solved.

Anonymous wrote:Simple solution, free abortion on demand.

Very few of these girls want abortions even if they were paid to get them. They want unconditional love and see a baby as they only way to secure it.

Anonymous wrote:I am a (white) welfare mother. Firstly, the elementary school my DD just graduated from after spending six years there, doesn't have any sort of honor roll. Secondly, what about the first 5-6 years of her life when she wasn't in school? So that's a decade+ of not having your friend's added incentive available as an option.

What I'd rather they do is provide (much) higher quality childcare options than Headstart, and then tell the PARENTS if they maintain a B or higher average they will pay for education that leads to a job that will support a family.

I think this is a great idea. It has to come with a long-acting contraceptive though. I mentor young mothers and the ones who derail their post-Baby #1 plans almost always do so because they get pregnant with #2. Depo Provera or Mirena would allow a 5 year space between children to get a degree and move out of the super expensive daycare years.

Simple solution, free abortion on demand.

Simple solution, expatriate welfare recipients to Canada if they can't get off public assistance in 2 years. That'll learn em.

Anonymous wrote:^^you're a white man keeping people of color down. You own the ability to do the peer reviewed research. It serves your best interest to make sure that sort of research is never done. Secondly, people in ghettos are not doing better by being on welfare. Generations of families remain in the system and away from the competitive sphere that provides true wealth and happiness. You know this, have benefitted from this and love it. Good for you (mad) scientist!

In your paranoid fantasy have all of the non-white scientists/researchers either been co-opted into the conspiracy or somehow suppressed so that they won't do this research, either? Not to mention all of the funding organizations that would sponsor something like that like the NAACP, etc.? That's quite the power conspiracy!

I must've missed the newsletter that came along with my degree that said, "Psst...Your degree is contingent on never doing or supporting research that might undermine the white hegemony."

Doesn't DC do something like that, they pay for good grades? But I think it includes all students, rich or poor. I don't think money should be the motivation to do well or try hard in any effort but for some, it makes a difference. So while I don't really agree with it in principle, if it motivates students to do well and go onto a better future with college and good jobs, then sure why not. I would rather invest in the future now with more adults keeping busy and contributing to society than pay more taxes for social services or prisons later.

^^you're a white man keeping people of color down. You own the ability to do the peer reviewed research. It serves your best interest to make sure that sort of research is never done. Secondly, people in ghettos are not doing better by being on welfare. Generations of families remain in the system and away from the competitive sphere that provides true wealth and happiness. You know this, have benefitted from this and love it. Good for you (mad) scientist!

Anonymous wrote:It's not so much a conservative v. Liberal thing as a white male hegemony v. Minorities and women. It's taken decades for the white man to convince people of color and women that they're only worth the mere scraps that welfare provides. They've fallen for it and consequently stay in the welfare pigeonhole. This keeps them from being competition for the white man. The hegemony stays the same as well as the status quo for minorities and women. The plan has worked so well that you have people demanding welfare for them to invest in their children. Beyond disgusting. I'll never see it, but one day minorities and women are going to rise up and tower above the white man. They'll be saying welfare is not good enough for me and I'm just as talented and hard working as the white man. I deserve what they've always had and I'm going to out work them for it. We shall overcome some day.

You do realize that "welfare" is a bunch of different programs - some run at the Federal level and some at the state level - that have different eligibility criteria and benefits, as well as different goals.

Is there any peer-reviewed research that supports your position that "welfare" (we'll use your generic term for all the different safety net programs) keeps people in the "welfare pigeonhole" and "keeps them from being competition for the white man," or are you just blowing smoke based on what your favorite pundit said?

On the conservative vs. liberal front, the social conservatives advocate removing sex ed from schools, limiting access to birth control (including as part of women's health insurance), cutting access to medical/family planning support like Planned Parenthood, cutting the budget for drug rehabilitation programs and half-way houses, etc., etc. (you know, despite all of that stuff in the Bible about charity, helping the poor, etc.), while fiscal conservatives are fighting to keep the minimum wage low, cut the Food Stamp programs, neuter unions and generally make the world safe for unregulated, unfettered capitalism - all of which makes life more difficult for those who are trying to break out of the poverty cycle.

Perhaps I've missed it, but I don't remember those goals in the Democratic party platforms.

What do you propose as an alternative?

It's not so much a conservative v. Liberal thing as a white male hegemony v. Minorities and women. It's taken decades for the white man to convince people of color and women that they're only worth the mere scraps that welfare provides. They've fallen for it and consequently stay in the welfare pigeonhole. This keeps them from being competition for the white man. The hegemony stays the same as well as the status quo for minorities and women. The plan has worked so well that you have people demanding welfare for them to invest in their children. Beyond disgusting. I'll never see it, but one day minorities and women are going to rise up and tower above the white man. They'll be saying welfare is not good enough for me and I'm just as talented and hard working as the white man. I deserve what they've always had and I'm going to out work them for it. We shall overcome some day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow! Has the entitlement culture gone this far off of its rocker? Now, people want the government to "get parents more involved with the human beings they've given birth to". Parents don't get involved because they have dignity, respect and obligation to their children- it's because the government provides money. How absolutely disgusting. It's shocking that things have gotten this bad that people could suggest this with a straight face. Tell the lady to go suggest this BS in China. She'd likely be hanged for such a ridiculous suggestion. This says two things- we've taken our citizenship so far for granted, that now we want the government to encourage appropriate parenting. And two- the Chinese and other Nations who would laugh at this are totally going to canabalize us. We've made it easy.

Of course we want government to encourage appropriate parenting. Because that benefits society as a whole.

The delusions never stop on here, do they? The amount of people on welfare are not decreasing. The so-called benefits to society for encouraging a welfare state are non-existent. The ghettos in my area are the same as they always have been. People are not doing better. So, obviously there is no benefit other than to keep poor people ignorant and poor so they never compete With the 1%.

That's because the policies over the past 30 years have overwhelmingly benefitted big business and not workers. You've effectively cut out a bunch of rungs in the middle of the ladder people used to pull themselves up by. The average wage hasn't increased at all since the 70s, adjusted for inflation. But the top 1 percent have sucked up massive amounts of money. The minuscule amount of cash circulating among the low income is laughable. The fact conservatives obsess so much over welfare is shameful.

FruminousBandersnatch wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are not supposed to have kids until you're ready, but "welfare moms" obviously don't live by that creed. I would be all for giving them extra money to parent their kids for success, which can be demonstrated by honor role status. Heck, they should get deductions if their kid commits crimes, becomes a parent before age 18, too.

I knew the "slut shaming" would come pretty easy in a thread about welfare mothers. No matter how frequently or thoroughly the "welfare mom" stereotype gets debunked, it amazes me how persistent it is.

I'm also fascinated by the intersection between the political groups who consistently believe the "welfare mom" stereotypes and oppose safety net spending (on the grounds that the recipients don't deserve it in some way or are responsible for their own circumstances) and the political groups who oppose sex ed, family planning and access to birth control (on the grounds that would lead to people having sex) and access to abortion (on the grounds that childrens' lives are precious).

Those political beliefs create a situation where we have young people who are ignorant about sex, don't have access to resources that would educate them, and don't have access to birth control, and so they get pregnant. The getting pregnant is not a solo activity, but these threads always focus on the mother. The fathers don't have the education or access to birth control, either.

So, we handicap them to start with, then we cut the budget for things that are proven to work like Head Start, and we shame them with the label of "welfare mothers" and "welfare dads" and they're in an economy where it's difficult for them to gets jobs. In the case of teens/college-age parents, they also face pressures and complications if they try to stay in school.

Where we need to be spending for children is the early childhood interventions - the things that keep them from starting at an even more significant disadvantage. If we have teen parents, we need to be helping them stay in school, and even to get their Assoc/Bachelors degree, because that helps break the cycle of poverty. We should be rewarding [b]the parents who stay in school and get good grades.[/b]

+1

Exactly!