As a baby boomer physician I remain outraged. It is criminal for this nation to decry birth control services and not provide for the children that result. It is criminal to think that on the pittance the women in this article receive that they can do a good job raising kids. It is criminal to think that we force these women to do two minimum wage jobs to hold it together. It is criminal to bring in immigrants and their relatives, often with tremendous medical needs such as total joints, dialiysis, coronary bypass or chemo or end stage diabetes, and then deny a living stipend to the women raising the children in this nation. It is criminal that half of the surgeries done in the US are unnecessary. It is criminal to provide hepatitis C treatment at incredible cost with a huge relapse rate and deny adequate resources for the mothers of these kids so that we can break the cycle of poverty. And it is criminal to see our politicians greased by the defense industry and their Ivy League attorney lobbyists lavish over half of the national budget on the military. The setting of priorities for our nation rests squarely in the hands of our leadership class. Can anyone say with a straight face that we are well led? Do we need one more multimillionaire Ivy League lawyer in chief? As Americans we should be ashamed of ourselves. If we don't want to support these children then we need to take measures to ensure birth control. But you can't have it both ways.
23
I'm astonished this article did not point out that data reveal the decrease in welfare rolls exactly matches the increase in disability cases, in these past twork decades. People may be poor, but many are quite adept at working - - the system. Don't kid yourselves; the dependency lives on. Remember "Octo-Mom"? Her monthly income was 100% made up from her brood's disabilities.
15
Republicans always feel 'popularity' if they can cut the funding------------------no matter what the dire consequences.
1
I had one kid because that's all I thought i could responsibly afford. I work, and make less than 60K so I'm not eligible for any welfare benefits. I have a graduate degree. I worked two jobs while my son was growing up. I'm healthy and take care of myself but my health care costs go up every year in higher deductibles and co-pays. I didn't come from money. Low income people have medicaid just now vastly expanded by Obamacare. There's food stamps, job training, housing subsidies, social security disability, cash assistance and the list of social safety net programs goes on. So how is it that someone who decides to start a family at age 16 and drops out of high school with no assistance from the partner is somehow entitled to the benefits of this safety net without any limit?
22
Roosevelt designed welfare as a continual vote source for the dims; keep people dependent on government and they will always vote for whoever promises them the most.
Those of us who work and bust our butts every day hate a lazy person. And, yeah, they're lazy. Why get off your butt and EARN a living when you can get one for just voting for the new massa?
Those of us who work and bust our butts every day hate a lazy person. And, yeah, they're lazy. Why get off your butt and EARN a living when you can get one for just voting for the new massa?
11
The same people don't see that giving free birth control would be a great deal of help in alleviating early pregnancy and if there is a child born well to bad you should have put an aspirin between your legs. One only has to take a trip to Europe and see what a society looks like that actually can make government work in the public's interest and pay less total taxes than we do.
8
Bill Clinton ended the program of "Welfare as we know it," as a means of appealing to conservative Republicans. In doing so, he started a program of exacerbating the problem of hunger in America, especially for hungry American children. To me, this was a reprehensible act.
8
If Hillary wants to gain some votes form Sanders' supporters, she should leave her husband at home, and tell us what new plan she has come up with. Bill isn't running.
19
@ChesBay,
You're not the first to say something along those lines and you mightn't be the last. Bloody good point.
5-21-16@9:37 pm
You're not the first to say something along those lines and you mightn't be the last. Bloody good point.
5-21-16@9:37 pm
1
My advice to anyone who cannot afford to have children: Please don't bring children into the world that you can't take care of. Once is bad enough, and bringing more than one child into impoverished circumstances is an offense against the children and the society in which they will struggle mightily to belong.
21
Those moms may need access to abortion in order to comply with your wishes. Being pregnant isn't magic, and neither is getting rid of an unwanted, unaffordable pregnancy. Give women universal access to all forms of birth control, and don't hang out in a dream world of totally disciplined sexual engagement.
18
oh please...like birth control isn't readily available to anyone who wants it. Now who is living in a dream world?
10
When are we going to realize that with world population over 7 billion, having children are not a right or entitlement but an enormous luxury.
21
Welcome to conservative, religionist dream world.
4
I have no problem with the law Bill Clinton signed. I just hate the GOP's cynical pandering to the anti-abortion crowd.
Abortion is an important right and often a path out of welfare.
Abortion is an important right and often a path out of welfare.
20
Mrs Robinson is a single mother with no job. How does she live on $278 a month. Is that supposed to cover rent, food and other necessary expenses like transportation when she leaves her house?
To stop cash assistance for people like Mrs. Robinson and Mrs Christian is un-Christian and inhumane.
If a person can't find a job, he or she should not be sentenced to abject poverty. There are too many benefits provided to upper income people and corporations and too much money lost through waste and corruption to claim we can't afford providing a monthly allowance in situations like Mrs Robinson's and Mrs. Christian's.
MAF-NYC
To stop cash assistance for people like Mrs. Robinson and Mrs Christian is un-Christian and inhumane.
If a person can't find a job, he or she should not be sentenced to abject poverty. There are too many benefits provided to upper income people and corporations and too much money lost through waste and corruption to claim we can't afford providing a monthly allowance in situations like Mrs Robinson's and Mrs. Christian's.
MAF-NYC
11
"Welfare" doesn't serve poor people, in this country. It serves the wealthy and corporations.
6
it also "serves" the local politicians and the local welfare "agencies" and their CEOs and employees who feed off the government money
9
Why lay the blame on Clinton when it is the individual (Red) states that are reducing assistance to ridiculously short time frames?
This would all be a moot point if we invested in education, childcare, transportation and JOBS for those who have been left behind in our economy.
This would all be a moot point if we invested in education, childcare, transportation and JOBS for those who have been left behind in our economy.
13
AND, those red states are doing everything possible to keep those people away from the polls, while calling themselves loving "Christians."
6
The government welfare system I'm concerned about is the one that gave Wall Street bankers 11 trillion dollars of taxpayer money - that's trillion with a "T" - after they crashed the world economy with their financial Ponzi schemes so they could re-inflate their assets at our expense, and then allowed them to stay in "business" rather than sending them to prison, breaking up their bankrupt institutions or nationalizing them. I don't see any of the smug proponents of self-help and responsibility posting on this thread recommending that these hapless public charges in Armani suits be weaned off their recurring dependence on the public dole and urged to get a real job, let alone be charged with embezzling public funds. But then again Park Avenue deadbeats don't look anything like Anna Robinson of Phoenix, Arizona, so I guess that makes sense.
31
I'm 66-and-a-half, and I retired last year after a couple of decades of teaching and a couple of decades in sales, marketing, and sundry other enterprises. Point is, I don't know whether the variety of employment opportunities that was open to me is still out and about for the current crop of would-be-workers. Automation and downsizing to cheaper climes seem to have reduced these openings, so putting a stringent time limit on our helping folks out - sort of a "put up or shut up" policy - doesn't strike me as being equitable - especially when I'm constantly reminded of our being a "Christian" county.
15
Nothing will thrust a woman into poverty faster and keep her there than having an planned baby. Long term contraception and other forms of birth control should be easily available for all young women starting in their freshman year of high school.
24
"The proportion of poor single mothers who neither work nor receive welfare has increased sharply since 1996"
How can this be true? Obtaining custody of a child entitles an American adult to taxpayer-funded housing, taxpayer-funded food, and taxpayer-funded medical and dental care (Medicaid). The level of quality of these welfare benefits may vary from state to state, but there does not seem to be a state in which non-working single mothers are simply left to starve in a field.
How can this be true? Obtaining custody of a child entitles an American adult to taxpayer-funded housing, taxpayer-funded food, and taxpayer-funded medical and dental care (Medicaid). The level of quality of these welfare benefits may vary from state to state, but there does not seem to be a state in which non-working single mothers are simply left to starve in a field.
8
A recurrent theme in all discussions of poverty is single motherhood. While it is politically incorrect to blame them, it remains a great puzzle as to why is so common among the poor. Having multiple children that you know you can't afford, is a certain way to live in poverty.
Birth control is cheap. The relationship between sex and pregnancy is no longer a mystery. Pregnancy is now a willful act.
It is inexcusable that the fathers disappear, but it is so routine that it cannot be a surprise to them. In too many cases, single motherhood is a choice that includes choosing to live in poverty.
Too many compound the problem by rejecting education, thereby assuring that they are at the bottom of every wage scale.
While It is true that some are victims of cruel circumstance, but for far too many it is the result of continual stupid choices. Examples of the impact of these decisions are all around them, yet they embrace it. Why can't we break this chain of failure by telling it like it is.....stupidity shoukd not be a cultural norm.
Birth control is cheap. The relationship between sex and pregnancy is no longer a mystery. Pregnancy is now a willful act.
It is inexcusable that the fathers disappear, but it is so routine that it cannot be a surprise to them. In too many cases, single motherhood is a choice that includes choosing to live in poverty.
Too many compound the problem by rejecting education, thereby assuring that they are at the bottom of every wage scale.
While It is true that some are victims of cruel circumstance, but for far too many it is the result of continual stupid choices. Examples of the impact of these decisions are all around them, yet they embrace it. Why can't we break this chain of failure by telling it like it is.....stupidity shoukd not be a cultural norm.
17
@Just Thinking,
Re: The cheapness of birth control, is it possible that what's cheap to you might be too costly for someone else? And if it doesn't work? Cruel circumstances, yes. Rape and incest definitely qualify as cruel circumstances.
5-21-16@9:47 pm
Re: The cheapness of birth control, is it possible that what's cheap to you might be too costly for someone else? And if it doesn't work? Cruel circumstances, yes. Rape and incest definitely qualify as cruel circumstances.
5-21-16@9:47 pm
6
would you recommend mandatory sterilization? How about mandatory abortion? If not, what is your solution?
2
Like all big, complex problems, the answers are not simple.
The welfare state that grew as a result of Lyndon Johnson's well-intentioned Great Society resulted in the warehousing of a permanent underclass and the destruction of American cities, flight of the middle class to the suburbs, suburban sprawl and oil-dependent economy.
But there are things beyond the control of the average person - the loss of jobs to Asia and Mexico; the economic crashes of 1987, 2001 and 2007 that threw huge numbers of people out of work...including those with no other resources than welfare.
One of the reasons a lot of people are so anti-tax is the feeling that the government squanders the money - look around New York at all of the things that need fixing despite the highest tax rates in the country. But that's not the fault of people on the fringes who lose their jobs because mortgage-backed securities implode.
The welfare state that grew as a result of Lyndon Johnson's well-intentioned Great Society resulted in the warehousing of a permanent underclass and the destruction of American cities, flight of the middle class to the suburbs, suburban sprawl and oil-dependent economy.
But there are things beyond the control of the average person - the loss of jobs to Asia and Mexico; the economic crashes of 1987, 2001 and 2007 that threw huge numbers of people out of work...including those with no other resources than welfare.
One of the reasons a lot of people are so anti-tax is the feeling that the government squanders the money - look around New York at all of the things that need fixing despite the highest tax rates in the country. But that's not the fault of people on the fringes who lose their jobs because mortgage-backed securities implode.
8
Change was necessary. If I respected his opinion, I'd go back and look at what Sen. Sanders said in opposition to AFDC reform. Should it not have been modified whatsoever? There was a problem of welfare dependence—and there still is, frankly. Perhaps the country should take another look at, and have a broader conversation about, a guaranteed income for all but the wealthiest.
As long as some people are billionaires and others are living in a state of impecuniosity, the far left will drive Democratic candidates to talk about little else. How often do you hear Bernie and Hillary promise to reform the Kafkaesque nature of America's regulatory and tax regimes?
Conservatives have issues that they care about; liberals have issues that they care about. And the other side denies the legitimacy—and even the existence—of the other's concerns. We shouldn't let sympathy for paupers blind us to the reality that dependency is a problem, that phased-out benefits often act as a disincentive.
The economy is always changing, but progressives have taken to blaming trade agreements—unreasonably—for all our ills. Their solution? Why, rewind globalization, of course! We need a centrist who understands the power of the market but who isn't dogmatic; can see when government needs to step in; can see when a cushion is necessary; and someone who is capable of admitting when that cushion's too comfortable. We need Hillary Clinton.
As long as some people are billionaires and others are living in a state of impecuniosity, the far left will drive Democratic candidates to talk about little else. How often do you hear Bernie and Hillary promise to reform the Kafkaesque nature of America's regulatory and tax regimes?
Conservatives have issues that they care about; liberals have issues that they care about. And the other side denies the legitimacy—and even the existence—of the other's concerns. We shouldn't let sympathy for paupers blind us to the reality that dependency is a problem, that phased-out benefits often act as a disincentive.
The economy is always changing, but progressives have taken to blaming trade agreements—unreasonably—for all our ills. Their solution? Why, rewind globalization, of course! We need a centrist who understands the power of the market but who isn't dogmatic; can see when government needs to step in; can see when a cushion is necessary; and someone who is capable of admitting when that cushion's too comfortable. We need Hillary Clinton.
9
This depressing article is yet another example of the new democrats, including Ms. Clinton's, abandonment of the poor and the working class in this country. See Frank, Listen Liberal, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People? Clinton, with her greed and millions for short speeches to her friends, is not in the least affected by the law. In contrast, poor families in Arizona and other states have been deeply hurt by the law and must, as the article indicates, struggle every day and must resort to collecting tin cans and selling their blood for income. It was recognized at the time when the law was passed that removing the federal guarantees would result in many states severely cutting benefits and they have done so. It is a disgrace to our country to treat our fellow citizens like this especially given the enormous wealth of our country. Nominating and electing Clinton, which appears to be very likely, would be a disaster for our country--although a lesser one than Trump except with respect to foreign intervention.
5
The children should not suffer for the sins of the fathers (or mothers). Arizona's legislature is run by a bunch of Republicans who care nothing for the poor, or for education or for anything or anyone who is not a 'job creator'.
4
Time limits might strike many readers as harsh. But if you agree that SOME restrictions are appropriate, time limits probably are as good as any other. Alternatives often prevent help from going to honest people but present no obstacle to the unscrupulous.
I'd put a high school friend in the latter category. Over 40 years ago, I gave him a ride to the "unemployment office" to pick up his check. He'd brought along a "Yellow Pages" phone book. When I asked him why, he said that he had to fill out a form showing that he'd tried to get work at at least three places since his last check. He satisfied that requirement by picking three companies out of the Yellow Pages as we drove downtown. Presumably he knew that the government agency would never call those companies to check.
I remember being shocked. But he was my friend, and I was young.
By the time we got to the "unemployment office," my friend had completed his form and signed it. While I waited in the car, he went in, dropped off his form and received his check.
I'd put a high school friend in the latter category. Over 40 years ago, I gave him a ride to the "unemployment office" to pick up his check. He'd brought along a "Yellow Pages" phone book. When I asked him why, he said that he had to fill out a form showing that he'd tried to get work at at least three places since his last check. He satisfied that requirement by picking three companies out of the Yellow Pages as we drove downtown. Presumably he knew that the government agency would never call those companies to check.
I remember being shocked. But he was my friend, and I was young.
By the time we got to the "unemployment office," my friend had completed his form and signed it. While I waited in the car, he went in, dropped off his form and received his check.
7
When we have Universal Health Care, it will simplify the choices the welfare beneficiaries must make. If one works and makes too much money, they lose welfare that includes Medicaid. But most lowly paid jobs have no job security. If I were poor, I would also try to stay on welfare just to have health coverage.
Instead of giving people welfare, why don't we set a inflation-adjustable fixed amount of income as the minimum living standard. If one makes less than this amount per year, the government pays the person the shortage. If one makes more than the amount, the person doesn't receive any welfare except for Medicaid. This means that the income level and asset allowed for any Medicaid beneficiary must have an elbow room either in amount or in time to accommodate variations of workers' wages. This gets too complicated unless we have Universal Health Care. Then all we have to worry about it how much welfare beneficiaries make per year. If they make more, the government pays nothing and they will pay taxes. If they make less, the government pays them welfare for the shortage.
We have to consider health care as part of welfare reform. People do want to contribute and feel better. Corporations complain about taxes and uncertainties in business. Universal health care can take this one big uncertainty off their operating equations when they know they should pay 50% of workers' premiums and workers pay the other half. Healthier workers are more productive. It's a win-win.
Instead of giving people welfare, why don't we set a inflation-adjustable fixed amount of income as the minimum living standard. If one makes less than this amount per year, the government pays the person the shortage. If one makes more than the amount, the person doesn't receive any welfare except for Medicaid. This means that the income level and asset allowed for any Medicaid beneficiary must have an elbow room either in amount or in time to accommodate variations of workers' wages. This gets too complicated unless we have Universal Health Care. Then all we have to worry about it how much welfare beneficiaries make per year. If they make more, the government pays nothing and they will pay taxes. If they make less, the government pays them welfare for the shortage.
We have to consider health care as part of welfare reform. People do want to contribute and feel better. Corporations complain about taxes and uncertainties in business. Universal health care can take this one big uncertainty off their operating equations when they know they should pay 50% of workers' premiums and workers pay the other half. Healthier workers are more productive. It's a win-win.
7
What people don't realize is that mothers who end up on welfare are often the hardest working people, cleaning houses and offices, taking care of other children, selling burritos, bread, and tamales, all in the underground economy, so no social security, no benefits, and less than minimum wage. No one can live on what welfare pays.
Unfortunately, some mothers ended up doing things they wouldn't have done before, like the drug trade or prostitution, things they never wanted to do and otherwise wouldn't have done.
Most women on welfare have 1-2 children, cycle on and off welfare based on changes in the job market, and suffer from high rates of depression and often have a disabled child to care for. When they do work, their minimum wage jobs don't pay enough to cover child care for the irregular work hours their jobs entail, so small children may be left without adult care, even at night. A child gets sick or a car breaks down and they lose their job, hence cycle back onto welfare in desperation until they find another minimum wage job, which offers irregular hours, no benefits, and bad working conditions just like the last one.
The life of a poor mother trying to raise her one or two children is brutal and nasty.
Unfortunately, some mothers ended up doing things they wouldn't have done before, like the drug trade or prostitution, things they never wanted to do and otherwise wouldn't have done.
Most women on welfare have 1-2 children, cycle on and off welfare based on changes in the job market, and suffer from high rates of depression and often have a disabled child to care for. When they do work, their minimum wage jobs don't pay enough to cover child care for the irregular work hours their jobs entail, so small children may be left without adult care, even at night. A child gets sick or a car breaks down and they lose their job, hence cycle back onto welfare in desperation until they find another minimum wage job, which offers irregular hours, no benefits, and bad working conditions just like the last one.
The life of a poor mother trying to raise her one or two children is brutal and nasty.
13
What you have so poignantly described are the worthy poor. I have no problem offering them every opportunity, including cash, to succeed.
7
I am liberal, and really all of my friends are. The one constant I see however is that among those who condemn welfare are those who, in the past, have known of someone, maybe a relative, maybe a friend or neighbor, maybe even through a third party, who has bragged of gaming the system and collecting, while the friend went off the work, maybe for a job they didn't particularly like. It only takes ONE instance of personal knowledge to affect someone's views over a lifetime. A lot more education is necessary. And having worked several years past retirement age to give myself enough to retire on, I am not so easy to say, tax me much more.
Unfortunately this issue has been so politicized, with the bottom tiers fighting each other while the top tiers accumulate more that it is almost impossible to have an intelligent discussion and come to sensible conclusions. I would like to see Hillary pull together people on all sides of the issue as she did with her proposed health care bill and work for the good of the country. There is not an easy answer. And we need a Democratic congress.
Unfortunately this issue has been so politicized, with the bottom tiers fighting each other while the top tiers accumulate more that it is almost impossible to have an intelligent discussion and come to sensible conclusions. I would like to see Hillary pull together people on all sides of the issue as she did with her proposed health care bill and work for the good of the country. There is not an easy answer. And we need a Democratic congress.
10
Are people who enter the U.S. illegally entitled to get welfare?
If so, that needs to stop.
Also to the woman who wrote that it is the children who will suffer when it is taken away I have one anecdote among many to pass along.
While standing on line in my local grocery store waiting to pay for my food, the woman in front of me wearing a fur coat placed a plastic container on the conveyor belt. Inside were four pieces of gloppy, sugary chocolate cake , topped with whipped cream and maraschino cherries. She paid for it with food stamps, left the store and got into her 2015 Honda Accord.
I struggle to make ends meet, am divorced, no alimony, one son, sole custody.
I"ve worked as many as five part-time jobs seven days a week. My son is now grown with a good job, his own place and a wonderful attitude. Neither his father nor the government is responsible.
As a taxpaying citizen, I resent every dime that goes to welfare. Especially to the
cheat in her Honda Accord snacking on junk food on my dime.
If so, that needs to stop.
Also to the woman who wrote that it is the children who will suffer when it is taken away I have one anecdote among many to pass along.
While standing on line in my local grocery store waiting to pay for my food, the woman in front of me wearing a fur coat placed a plastic container on the conveyor belt. Inside were four pieces of gloppy, sugary chocolate cake , topped with whipped cream and maraschino cherries. She paid for it with food stamps, left the store and got into her 2015 Honda Accord.
I struggle to make ends meet, am divorced, no alimony, one son, sole custody.
I"ve worked as many as five part-time jobs seven days a week. My son is now grown with a good job, his own place and a wonderful attitude. Neither his father nor the government is responsible.
As a taxpaying citizen, I resent every dime that goes to welfare. Especially to the
cheat in her Honda Accord snacking on junk food on my dime.
20
Are you resentful that billionaire Trump paid NO tax during some tax period?
Never happen to me, in over 40 years.
Never happen to me, in over 40 years.
6
While l can understand setting limits, not all situations are the same. The types of jobs that use to be available are disappearing. Jobs like tellers, toll operators, cashiers, retail clerks (to name a few) have been automated or replaced by robots making it harder to find jobs that use to be plentiful.
And with corporations moving their operations to other countries, what choices are there?
So now Arizona wants to throw away the less fortunate? They have no soul!
And with corporations moving their operations to other countries, what choices are there?
So now Arizona wants to throw away the less fortunate? They have no soul!
2
Funny, in my neighborhood people refuse to use automated cashiers. The supermarkets all have human cashiers.
2
Clinton signed the workfare bill for one reason only: Dick Morris told him that if he did not sign it, he would not be re-elected. Democrats depend on welfare to buy votes, and every person off welfare, i.e., paying their own way and building up personal responsibility, is a potential lost Democrat vote. Whether the limitation should be as short as 12 months is certainly debatable, but the idea that healthy people should get welfare for life is a purely political stance by Democrats buying votes with taxes paid (mostly) by Republicans and Independents.
6
Since when living off other people and not working and taking responsibility became an entitlement? Since when opposing this practice became inhuman or heartless? Since when producing children out of wedlock and refusing to work or take care of those children became a normal acceptable thing to do? Since when eliminating welfare for deadwoods who are perfectly healthy and capable became sin?
13
And thus the divide- Democrats want taxpayer funded federal and state programs to "assist" the poor by providing a myriad of social programs while Republicans demand these people rely on themselves, prayer, hard work and "a pinch" of Christian charity from benevolent millionaires.
7
We live in one of the world's wealthiest nations, where CEOs reap incomes in the tens of millions of dollars. It's disgraceful that anyone in America goes hungry or without shelter and other necessities. Cleary, there's more than enough to go around.
If we can manage to spend money to keep convicts alive in prison, why can't we find a way to sufficiently support those in need of the basics to survive?
If we can manage to spend money to keep convicts alive in prison, why can't we find a way to sufficiently support those in need of the basics to survive?
12
Did this article mention a single person going without food or shelter? It discusses their taxpayer supported funding being cut off but does it talk about people starving to death? Dying of exposure?
We have the highest standard of poverty in the world.
If you want to see real poverty, you need to leave the country. You won't even need to leave the hemisphere though. JFK has direct flights to both Haiti and the DR if you're truly concerned about people going without food or hunger.
We have the highest standard of poverty in the world.
If you want to see real poverty, you need to leave the country. You won't even need to leave the hemisphere though. JFK has direct flights to both Haiti and the DR if you're truly concerned about people going without food or hunger.
4
@EinT,
Did the article mention anyone going without food or shelter? Perhaps it should because people still do. I've seen people sleeping outside on benches--on American soil.
5-21-16@9:57 pm
Did the article mention anyone going without food or shelter? Perhaps it should because people still do. I've seen people sleeping outside on benches--on American soil.
5-21-16@9:57 pm
4
My wife and I worked our ass off to send each other through school At the same time having to young kids. I would search the house for enough change to buy a gallon of milk. Then while waiting in line with my milk and change some free loading lazy person buys butts wine and scratch tickets with cash then buys junk food with food stamps.
They are steeling right from my kids
Were is the sense of responsibility from the fathers, the family. You lazy irresponsible lay about's. We are tired of supporting this amoral life style.
The women in the picture is obese, a lot less food would be healthy for her and prevent long term health problems, increased blood pressure and diabetes
They are steeling right from my kids
Were is the sense of responsibility from the fathers, the family. You lazy irresponsible lay about's. We are tired of supporting this amoral life style.
The women in the picture is obese, a lot less food would be healthy for her and prevent long term health problems, increased blood pressure and diabetes
27
There are many people at my local supermarket paying with EBT cards or SNAP. This is easy to verify, as the cards must be processed on a separate card reader.
I have noticed that they always are buying cigarettes and beer and scratch off Lotto tickets -- while using the EBT card for their food. So they do have some cash, they just don't spend it on FOOD. Why should they? Stupid taxpayers buy all their food.
A few months ago, I stood behind a woman with 2 teenage daughters. She was paying with a SNAP card, and buying all sorts of candy, cookies, fruit punch, ice cream, frozen pizza -- junk food. At least $100 worth. She was wearing a beautiful leather jacket with a fur collar -- yes, it was real, I can tell. She was carrying a Coach leather handbag, and her hair and nails were beautifully, with a very elaborate manicure. Her two daughters were wearing Northface jackets and new UGG boots. They were ALL yakking simultaneously on new iPhones.
Stuff like that ordinary taxpayers see every day and it is MADDENING. I cannot afford these things -- how can someone on WELFARE afford these luxuries? and without the slightest shame to be swiping a SNAP card while wearing hundreds of dollars in luxury clothing!
I have noticed that they always are buying cigarettes and beer and scratch off Lotto tickets -- while using the EBT card for their food. So they do have some cash, they just don't spend it on FOOD. Why should they? Stupid taxpayers buy all their food.
A few months ago, I stood behind a woman with 2 teenage daughters. She was paying with a SNAP card, and buying all sorts of candy, cookies, fruit punch, ice cream, frozen pizza -- junk food. At least $100 worth. She was wearing a beautiful leather jacket with a fur collar -- yes, it was real, I can tell. She was carrying a Coach leather handbag, and her hair and nails were beautifully, with a very elaborate manicure. Her two daughters were wearing Northface jackets and new UGG boots. They were ALL yakking simultaneously on new iPhones.
Stuff like that ordinary taxpayers see every day and it is MADDENING. I cannot afford these things -- how can someone on WELFARE afford these luxuries? and without the slightest shame to be swiping a SNAP card while wearing hundreds of dollars in luxury clothing!
16
College certainly didn't help your spelling or editing skills!
4
But does it also make you mad, when you think about the fact that we're still giving money at zero interest to Wall Street and that their gambling casino that nearly brought the world down is STILL operating the way that it did? Does it make you mad that, none of those people responsible went to jail and no doubt, took a big chunk of your retirement income with them? How about being angry about our military budget, which we continually feed zillions of dollars, and are spending more than all of the other modern countries combined? This welfare to the poor thing is NOTHING, compared to any of that. Given a choice, I would rather pay some of my tax dollars for those who do not have anything. After all, we can talk until we're blue in the face about jobs, yet this is a waste, if the job does not pay a living wage.
3
You should not be allowed to keep your second child unless you prove that you are independently taking care of your first one.
21
Problem: so who will take the second child?
3
What do you propose should be done to the second child? Should government agents sweep down on the delivery room and snatch the child from its mother's arms? Should the child be sent to a state-run orphanage and then, if lucky, be shuttled from foster home to foster home, doubtless learning valuable lessons about good citizenship and personal responsibility from the loving care it received?
It is extraordinary how little concern many of the respondents to this article show to the poor children it describes, preferring instead to vent their hostility towards the women who are their mothers. And it is extraordinary how quick these critics are to judge people about whom they know so little. No doubt some of these mothers are irresponsible. Some are indeed themselves the children of a culture of welfare that holds living on the dole to be the norm. But it would be the height of irresponsibility on our part to make victims of their children, not to mention making victims of those who are unable to support their families through no fault of their own.
Would those who are loudest about cutting off benefits and seizing children be willing to adopt the orphans they had created? Would they support legislation that guaranteed a decently paying job for anyone seeking work? From their tone, it would seem not.
It was Ebenezer Scrooge who shouted, "Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?" History has not judged him kindly.
It is extraordinary how little concern many of the respondents to this article show to the poor children it describes, preferring instead to vent their hostility towards the women who are their mothers. And it is extraordinary how quick these critics are to judge people about whom they know so little. No doubt some of these mothers are irresponsible. Some are indeed themselves the children of a culture of welfare that holds living on the dole to be the norm. But it would be the height of irresponsibility on our part to make victims of their children, not to mention making victims of those who are unable to support their families through no fault of their own.
Would those who are loudest about cutting off benefits and seizing children be willing to adopt the orphans they had created? Would they support legislation that guaranteed a decently paying job for anyone seeking work? From their tone, it would seem not.
It was Ebenezer Scrooge who shouted, "Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?" History has not judged him kindly.
5
So, let's put them in orphanages until they are old enough to go into work houses.
Funny, no one is asking to bring back "debtors prison" for Wall Street investors" and billionaires, filing for bankruptcy.
Funny, no one is asking to bring back "debtors prison" for Wall Street investors" and billionaires, filing for bankruptcy.
7
There are two things necessary for welfare reform and maintenance on a long-term basis:
1) It is a temporary resource, and should be a block amount. You don't get more for more children. First step is to learn to live on a budget that doesn't increase every time you have a new kid.
2) Politicians have to be real about job prospects. Stop supporting policies that send jobs overseas, and create a job, any job for someone receiving a handout.
3) Stop asking the working classes to pay more. We're already over taxed and under serviced.
There. Problem solved.
1) It is a temporary resource, and should be a block amount. You don't get more for more children. First step is to learn to live on a budget that doesn't increase every time you have a new kid.
2) Politicians have to be real about job prospects. Stop supporting policies that send jobs overseas, and create a job, any job for someone receiving a handout.
3) Stop asking the working classes to pay more. We're already over taxed and under serviced.
There. Problem solved.
24
@minh z,
No. Problem not solved by a long shot. A fellow reader mentioned mental illness, trauma victims and so forth. Someone else referred to sudden life threatening and debilitating illnesses that can render a person unable to work or in need of the kind of care that could cost a family member's job.
5-21-16@10:07 pm
No. Problem not solved by a long shot. A fellow reader mentioned mental illness, trauma victims and so forth. Someone else referred to sudden life threatening and debilitating illnesses that can render a person unable to work or in need of the kind of care that could cost a family member's job.
5-21-16@10:07 pm
2
I can confirm what another commenter wrote:
If you think your medical costs, especially insurance, will drop dramatically once you or another family member becomes eligible for Medicare, you'd better think again. For people who are used to private-insurance coverage, Medicare will seem bare-bones, which it is, and so you'll probably sign up for various supplemental-coverage programs. Overall, I think our medical insurance costs have dropped about 10%, and I now make 3 or 4 additional medical-insurance payments.
For someone who's used to having NO health insurance, Medicare probably is quite an improvement. But for those who are used to private health insurance, the improvement may be minimal at best.
If you think your medical costs, especially insurance, will drop dramatically once you or another family member becomes eligible for Medicare, you'd better think again. For people who are used to private-insurance coverage, Medicare will seem bare-bones, which it is, and so you'll probably sign up for various supplemental-coverage programs. Overall, I think our medical insurance costs have dropped about 10%, and I now make 3 or 4 additional medical-insurance payments.
For someone who's used to having NO health insurance, Medicare probably is quite an improvement. But for those who are used to private health insurance, the improvement may be minimal at best.
7
Medicare is not cheap. Whoever thinks that (mostly lefty liberals) is nuts. I had to handle Medicare for an elderly relative; I was shocked! I think I believed it was mostly free. It costs about $500 a month, between Part B, Part D (drug plan) and a good Medigap plan.
The big thing is it is not cheap, but it is guaranteed and it has no lifetime caps and very little denial of service. If you need care, you get it. Nearly every hospital takes it and most doctors. You don't get a runaround every year and nobody drops your coverage, or radically changes your plan.
So it is secure and universal for the elderly. But it is not cheap.
The big thing is it is not cheap, but it is guaranteed and it has no lifetime caps and very little denial of service. If you need care, you get it. Nearly every hospital takes it and most doctors. You don't get a runaround every year and nobody drops your coverage, or radically changes your plan.
So it is secure and universal for the elderly. But it is not cheap.
4
@Concerned Citizen,
I'm from a family of "lefty liberals" and I'm painfully aware of the cost of Medicare Part B. My mom's a retired public school librarian. Part B is costly.
5-21-16@10:12 pm
I'm from a family of "lefty liberals" and I'm painfully aware of the cost of Medicare Part B. My mom's a retired public school librarian. Part B is costly.
5-21-16@10:12 pm
1
Some of the commenters are so outraged by the poor who receive a pittance in welfare support, yet show no outrage when many corporations and the uber wealthy avail themselves, through legal manipulations, to millions of dollars in corporate welfare. No problem there, gee it doesn't have to do with the fact that it's mostly white males manipulating the system to gorge themselves at the public trough.
13
No country for white males.
No, actually, I have a problem with that as well. I have a problem with people who can't afford to have children having children and expecting the rest of us to pay for their poor judgment and I also have a problem with yt men manipulating the system and getting out of paying their fair of taxes or paying their employees a non-living wage that essentially requires their employees to have government assistance in order to live.
6
Democrats, including Hillary and Bill Clinton. can't be blamed for what perverse and scheming Republican hucksters in Arizona or Missouri do to poor families.
7
Read the article again.
"The federal law required states to set time limits on the receipt of cash ".
These "perverse and scheming Republican hucksters" are merely complying with legislation passed when Bill Clinton was president. Legislation sighed into law by Bill Clinton. They can indeed be blamed. And they are being blamed.
"The federal law required states to set time limits on the receipt of cash ".
These "perverse and scheming Republican hucksters" are merely complying with legislation passed when Bill Clinton was president. Legislation sighed into law by Bill Clinton. They can indeed be blamed. And they are being blamed.
6
American way of life?
2
Don't cry for me Argentina.
Really?
Really?
1
So anyone who needs plasma should be grateful to the poor?
4
@Marlene,
If it comes from a poor person...
5-21-16@10:15 pm
If it comes from a poor person...
5-21-16@10:15 pm
1
"Ms. Christian, a single mother, said she could not afford to lose the aid. She has two young sons and no job."
Another alternative. Don't have kids you can't afford.
Harsh? Yes, but responsible parenting is a factor most others not on public assistance have to grapple with daily.
Another alternative. Don't have kids you can't afford.
Harsh? Yes, but responsible parenting is a factor most others not on public assistance have to grapple with daily.
23
Yes, if you cannot afford to have children, you should not have them! The rest of society should not be held responsible for an individual's actions. I want children, but am not in a position to do so yet. I suppose I could do so, irresponsibly, and live on government assistance, but that wouldn't be fair to anyone else. It's especially not fair to the child who has no choice but to be brought into a world of poverty and struggle.
9
Well, not to defend her but some women do have children and their husbands die young leaving no life insurance or very little life insurance. Happened to my mother. She did get a job in Macy's, my younger brother suffered with ADD and ended up using drugs.
4
Anyone who has kids without life insurance on both partners deserves the resulting hardship frankly.
2
"Welfare reform" was, in part, a way for the Clintons to solidify their bona fides among whit people. Welfare was, and is, perceived as lazy black people exploiting the system, a la Reagan's "welfare queen" and "young buck" a corollary to Le page's "Swifty". Clinton couched it a different way, but the whole things was about placating whites, who feel that black people are picking THEIR pockets. I call it Trump-light.
11
It is true that Black Americans, as a percentage of their population, receive more welfare than Whites - about 30% of Black Americans receive some sort of welfare whereas only 7% of White Americans receive some sort of welfare. However, White Americans make up the plurality of welfare recipients as they are the majority population in this country.
I don't think Black people are necessarily responsible for the endemic poverty that plagues them (they're doing pretty well for a population that was ENSLAVED but 150 years ago), but should anybody who cannot afford to raise a child really be encouraged (by welfare benefits) to have one? To me, bringing children you cannot afford into this world is unfair - it is unfair to everyone else in society who cannot afford to have a child that made the decision not to have children and it is unfair to the child who had no say in being brought into a world of poverty and struggle. We need to de-incentivize welfare to end the horrible cycles of poverty that plague the White and Black communities alike.
I don't think Black people are necessarily responsible for the endemic poverty that plagues them (they're doing pretty well for a population that was ENSLAVED but 150 years ago), but should anybody who cannot afford to raise a child really be encouraged (by welfare benefits) to have one? To me, bringing children you cannot afford into this world is unfair - it is unfair to everyone else in society who cannot afford to have a child that made the decision not to have children and it is unfair to the child who had no say in being brought into a world of poverty and struggle. We need to de-incentivize welfare to end the horrible cycles of poverty that plague the White and Black communities alike.
3
@Sean Garner,
Your sources for your stats and for the types of welfare you're talking about, please?
5-21-16@10:18 pm
Your sources for your stats and for the types of welfare you're talking about, please?
5-21-16@10:18 pm
1
Why don't you "de-incentivize" sex, while you're at it?
Poor people, black or white, aren't getting pregnant so they can get benefits. That's absurd on it's face. People have sex. People get pregnant, the good white folks have decreed that the one thing that can't be paid or with federal funds is an abortion. People who can't afford to have children do it all the time. White folks, having a connection the broader society and employers, get jobs and come to afford their kids. Little white girls get pregnant, too.
And the cycles of poverty do not "plague white and black communities alike". That's another piece of nonsense, used to disguise, and deny, the actual existence of racism and a deliberate creation of "two Americas".
Again, welfare reform is not about reform. If it was, there'd be jobs to go along with the cuts, not an imperative, aimed at black people, that they prove they're not "lazy".
Poor people, black or white, aren't getting pregnant so they can get benefits. That's absurd on it's face. People have sex. People get pregnant, the good white folks have decreed that the one thing that can't be paid or with federal funds is an abortion. People who can't afford to have children do it all the time. White folks, having a connection the broader society and employers, get jobs and come to afford their kids. Little white girls get pregnant, too.
And the cycles of poverty do not "plague white and black communities alike". That's another piece of nonsense, used to disguise, and deny, the actual existence of racism and a deliberate creation of "two Americas".
Again, welfare reform is not about reform. If it was, there'd be jobs to go along with the cuts, not an imperative, aimed at black people, that they prove they're not "lazy".
2
Celeste Plumlee was not on welfare for three years.
She collected food stamps while she went to grad school.
She collected food stamps while she went to grad school.
9
Disgusting. The same old meme that people choose to be poor and live off the government. Success or failure in life is related to many variables.
Also more proof that Bill Clinton was a Republican in reality, as is his wife. "DINO"
Also more proof that Bill Clinton was a Republican in reality, as is his wife. "DINO"
8
Sorry, Hillary. Chickens come home to roost. Bernie's so right on this. She can't hide on this. Maybe she needs to try creative lying, like her opponent, Trump. He gets away with it - she'd better learn to do it.
6
Why can't unemployed, single mothers wash diapers? Please don't say the cost of diapers is high.
23
My grandma washed them in the bathtub -boiling pots of water on the stove - for six kids. They got zero welfare despite pretty dire poverty.
Why can't today's pampered single welfare moms scrub some cloth diapers the same way.? Would it ruin their long gel fingernails or take time away from their smartphones???
Why can't today's pampered single welfare moms scrub some cloth diapers the same way.? Would it ruin their long gel fingernails or take time away from their smartphones???
5
Perhaps the solution is not to be a single mother. If you can't take care of yourself, then you certainly can't take care of anyone else. Instead of cash, hand out sterilization or birth control.
22
I like it better when you write articles about what some women have thought of how Trump treated them (without ever mentioning how Bill Clinton treated women with his wife's lying support). This article is disquieting after four years of the New York Times doing nothing but praise Hillary, marginalize her Democratic opponents, ignore legitimate concerns about her professional conduct as Secretary of State, inflate her lightweight role as a US Senator, credit her with contributions to healthcare reform that she didn't make, and generally proclaim her the next president of the United States (and, oh yeah, ridiculing the GOP candidates). Now you write a critical article of the Clinton welfare legacy???? Come on - it's a little late to try to be "balanced" now - you'll count the articles and say "oh, we counted, we were balanced in our coverage." Sort of like scoring during garbage point time in a basketball game - this doesn't count!
16
For there but, by the grace of God go I.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in his moccasins.
How have we become to hate our own?
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in his moccasins.
How have we become to hate our own?
11
I have walked in the shoes of being a young, very sexually active woman with very little money. I made sure that birth control via planned parenthood was a priority even over food and drink. I didn't oops three kids by age 22.
It's not that tough to avoid pregnancy if one is motivated.
It's not that tough to avoid pregnancy if one is motivated.
11
Bill Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall; the result of that was the Great Recession and the rapid downfall of the middle class. Adding to that NAFTA. Mr. Clinton was the architect of the Great Recession and his wife wants to put him in charge of the economy? To do what? To finish the middle class and push more into poverty?
I never have been a fan of a free handouts, but when the politicians, and the 1%, change the rules of the game to push more people into poverty, then you see a need. Since the so called economic boom of the 1990s, which created the basis of our oligarchy, the poverty rate is now apporaching1 in 5, in the richest country in the world.
So, why worry about a Republican being elected to the White House? The, bought and paid for by Wall Street ,Clintons will make Ronald Reagan look like Karl Marx.
I never have been a fan of a free handouts, but when the politicians, and the 1%, change the rules of the game to push more people into poverty, then you see a need. Since the so called economic boom of the 1990s, which created the basis of our oligarchy, the poverty rate is now apporaching1 in 5, in the richest country in the world.
So, why worry about a Republican being elected to the White House? The, bought and paid for by Wall Street ,Clintons will make Ronald Reagan look like Karl Marx.
19
There ya go, Nick Metrowsky! Yet, people are foolishly voting for this woman, wh is clearly owned by Wall Street, and the DNC is trying to use scare tactics to ensure people vote on their rigged choice of a candidate, Mrs. Clinton. This whole election process has been a complete farce. On the one side, we have crooks on Wall Street who never went to jail for what they did, and we have the wife of a two term President, who should not even be eligible to run, given she's already been in the White House for 8 years. Whether or not she wins, a law is necessary to make sure that a FAMILY can only serve two terms. Now, for the other side, Wall Street was the first, Mrs. Clinton is the other: She's currently being investigated by the FBI for what is clearly a felony. I know, she keeps calling it a security review and foolishly, people believe her when she says that this is a Republican conspiracy. Well, I'm not a Republican and have never been, but I AM an Information Technology expert, and I can tell you this: Setting up a private server to do Government business, which bypasses the State Department, which means that, your work related emails never passed through the owner of those emails, which would be the State Department, is BREAKING the law. Note that, having respect for a former first lady, the Government asked Mrs. Clinton for the emails, when they could have just seized them. Bring on the indictment, so that the Dems have a chance to pick someone else.
5
This, a young poor vulnerable woman raising 2 children on less than $300 a month - this is Hillary Clinton's 'feminism.'
The Clintons are themselves part of the 'war on women' which has always essentially been a war on poor women.
Any feminists who support Hillary because 'she understands the struggle' are lying to themselves.
Women who don't support or care about poor women and children are not feminists.
The Clintons are themselves part of the 'war on women' which has always essentially been a war on poor women.
Any feminists who support Hillary because 'she understands the struggle' are lying to themselves.
Women who don't support or care about poor women and children are not feminists.
16
The problem is not the concept. It is in the application. Before cutting in a particular it should be demonstrated that jobs are available in that area that people are not taking advantage of. In addition why should legislatures who are far worse abusers of public funds be trusted to shape policy on who receives assistance. They are welfare recipients themselves. Fraud in Defense Dept spending for example is rewarded with larger budgets rather than less. And let me say this directly to the author. It is well documented that far more recipients of assistance are white families, across the country. Why do you and your profession insist in showing Black families in articles like this perpetuating a long held myth regarding who is on aid in America?
12
"The hard core welfare recipients moved onto disability years ago."
Just yesterday, I visited a boyhood friend whose wife receives disability payments and will for the rest of her life. That's fine with me because she's clearly disabled, and she and my friend supported her without government assistance for decades before she got that way. She's exactly the sort of "less fortunate member" that society should support, and I doubt that other Americans would disagree if they met her.
That woman has a son-in-law who (with his wife, the woman's daughter) has 4 kids. He used to make more money, but good jobs are scarce in his field now, and he considers alternative jobs "demeaning" because they pay much less than he used to make. As a result, he's working only sporadically in his field, bringing home less money than he'd be bringing home from one of those "demeaning" jobs. His family is struggling economically.
That son-in-law would apply for welfare in a heartbeat if he thought he could get it. He probably can't, which is fine with me. The less society spends on welfare payments to such people, the more society will have available for people who have no choice in the matter -- such as his mother-in-law.
Just yesterday, I visited a boyhood friend whose wife receives disability payments and will for the rest of her life. That's fine with me because she's clearly disabled, and she and my friend supported her without government assistance for decades before she got that way. She's exactly the sort of "less fortunate member" that society should support, and I doubt that other Americans would disagree if they met her.
That woman has a son-in-law who (with his wife, the woman's daughter) has 4 kids. He used to make more money, but good jobs are scarce in his field now, and he considers alternative jobs "demeaning" because they pay much less than he used to make. As a result, he's working only sporadically in his field, bringing home less money than he'd be bringing home from one of those "demeaning" jobs. His family is struggling economically.
That son-in-law would apply for welfare in a heartbeat if he thought he could get it. He probably can't, which is fine with me. The less society spends on welfare payments to such people, the more society will have available for people who have no choice in the matter -- such as his mother-in-law.
14
I volunteer at a church's food pantry The people who come desperately need what food is donated, primarily by other slightly less poor people and also by the Food Bank of Southeastern Virginia. Supermarkets donate almost expired food to that. Our food panty pays for most of the food we get from the Bank. But churches are closing everywhere, and so are food pantries. SNAP (food stamps) are indispensable, as are school breakfast and lunch, or else we'd rival some African nations in starving children. The burden of people having children they can't afford and the government's refusal to house the mentally ill is being borne by the lower middle class. Welfare reform was needed. Clinton did the right thing, but those high earners who evade paying taxes don't. All birth control should be free.
14
Marian Wright Edelman is still president of the Children's Defense Fund is Washington DC. She cut ties with Hillary and Bill Clinton over the welfare reform bill the Clintons supported and he signed back in the 1990s - although Hillary still dines out on "I worked for the Children's Defense Fund." Hillary then turned around and, with her husband, worked against it.
I used to work with Peter Edelman. I still frequently see Marian Wright Edelman shopping in the Washington D.C. grocery store I shop at. For decades I've wanted to ask her why she never speaks out publicly against Hillary as a candidate. I'm curious. But I would never bother her.
Still, the Edelmans have allowed Hillary to keep using the Children's Defense Fund as part of her resume, decades after they repudiated and cut ties with the Clintons because they threw so many poor women and children under the bus.
Where are the Edelmans as Hillary continues to use the reputation of their foundation for political gain, even as she works against poor women?
I used to work with Peter Edelman. I still frequently see Marian Wright Edelman shopping in the Washington D.C. grocery store I shop at. For decades I've wanted to ask her why she never speaks out publicly against Hillary as a candidate. I'm curious. But I would never bother her.
Still, the Edelmans have allowed Hillary to keep using the Children's Defense Fund as part of her resume, decades after they repudiated and cut ties with the Clintons because they threw so many poor women and children under the bus.
Where are the Edelmans as Hillary continues to use the reputation of their foundation for political gain, even as she works against poor women?
11
@fastfurious,
I am so glad you brought that up. I think I did also in another comments area months ago. Some time ago, I got curious about Ms. Edelman and did some digging. I read about their differences, which, in turn gave me moments of pause when Hillary mentioned it again and again during debates, etc. I also read that Ms. Edelman and Hillary made some sort peace with each other. I thought: ok, whatever.
The thing is, once I learn something, I can't exactly unlearn it and I'm not sure I should, particularly when I've got to vote.
5-21-16@10:35 pm
I am so glad you brought that up. I think I did also in another comments area months ago. Some time ago, I got curious about Ms. Edelman and did some digging. I read about their differences, which, in turn gave me moments of pause when Hillary mentioned it again and again during debates, etc. I also read that Ms. Edelman and Hillary made some sort peace with each other. I thought: ok, whatever.
The thing is, once I learn something, I can't exactly unlearn it and I'm not sure I should, particularly when I've got to vote.
5-21-16@10:35 pm
People need to work, and when they don’t, or when they work for less than a living wage (as millions do), the rest of us are unfairly called upon to pick up the hefty slack, while employers reap the benefits.
How long would a business that only paid a third of its electric bill or half the cost of its raw materials remain open, or deserve to?
We need to forge a new social contract with ourselves, setting out our rights and responsibilities. Rights?: An adequate education and a job that pays a living wage. Responsibilities?: Perform your job to the best of your ability and be a good citizen.
We would all be much better off if our system encouraged, enabled, and, yes, expected us to exercise our natural independence rather than the contrary.
The left-leaning inclination to expand the safety net and the right-leaning inclination to limit such support to business and the one percenters, are both equally misguided.
Our employment model needs to be based on the instinct for self-reliance which has always characterized our people. It also needs to stop enabling so many of us—employer and employee alike—to be dependent on the rest of us.
“It seems to me . . . that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country . . . and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level—I mean the wages of decent living.”
--Franklin Delano Roosevelt
How long would a business that only paid a third of its electric bill or half the cost of its raw materials remain open, or deserve to?
We need to forge a new social contract with ourselves, setting out our rights and responsibilities. Rights?: An adequate education and a job that pays a living wage. Responsibilities?: Perform your job to the best of your ability and be a good citizen.
We would all be much better off if our system encouraged, enabled, and, yes, expected us to exercise our natural independence rather than the contrary.
The left-leaning inclination to expand the safety net and the right-leaning inclination to limit such support to business and the one percenters, are both equally misguided.
Our employment model needs to be based on the instinct for self-reliance which has always characterized our people. It also needs to stop enabling so many of us—employer and employee alike—to be dependent on the rest of us.
“It seems to me . . . that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country . . . and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level—I mean the wages of decent living.”
--Franklin Delano Roosevelt
26
Amen! My husband pointed out years ago that he was tired of supporting me in a job that didn't pay a living wage. I loved the job, but he was right. He rightfully felt he was subsidizing my employer. How many others are in my position?
1
Arizona's one-year limit is a good idea for the state. Those who fear they might need assistance for more than a year will leave the state and be a burden to citizens of other states. The states where these people wind up will have increasing problems as other states follow Arizona's lead and it becomes more difficult to persuade aid recipients to leave for more generous states.
Our first and most popular entitlement is the state-level entitlement of all children to an education whether their parents pay for it through taxes or not. Although they are entitled to up to 12 years of education in Arizona, they are entitled to food and shelter (delivered through their mothers) for only a year. After that, children of feckless mothers depend on charity and on the ability of their mothers to get their act together. Those who have parents who will not work (and anyone who tries hard enough can find a job), will not eat.
Our first and most popular entitlement is the state-level entitlement of all children to an education whether their parents pay for it through taxes or not. Although they are entitled to up to 12 years of education in Arizona, they are entitled to food and shelter (delivered through their mothers) for only a year. After that, children of feckless mothers depend on charity and on the ability of their mothers to get their act together. Those who have parents who will not work (and anyone who tries hard enough can find a job), will not eat.
9
But will increased welfare accomplish this?
"Poor people and particularly their children need and deserve help. It is in our national interest to help these people develop into strong productive people who contribute positively to our nation."
Do we "help these people develop into strong productive people" by telling them "The taxpayers will support you and your children -- however many you may have -- unconditionally for the rest of your lives." Or do we help them develop into strong productive people by saying: "There's a safety net for you. The taxpayers will support you and your children, but that support will be limited, will last for 5 years max, and will be there only if you make a serious effort to support yourself."
That's the question.
The argument that "The available jobs are demeaning" isn't persuasive to those of us who are working to fund payments to people who won't take those "demeaning" jobs -- especially when we would take those demeaning jobs ourselves if necessary to support ourselves and our families.
Nor is the argument that "A person's decision whether to have a child is a personal decision" very persuasive. That argument makes good sense if can support that child yourself, or can rely on family members or friends to support your child. But if you're going to ask society to support your child, society has a right to set limits and conditions. Frankly, I doubt there are many "family members and friends" who wouldn't set such limits and conditions.
"Poor people and particularly their children need and deserve help. It is in our national interest to help these people develop into strong productive people who contribute positively to our nation."
Do we "help these people develop into strong productive people" by telling them "The taxpayers will support you and your children -- however many you may have -- unconditionally for the rest of your lives." Or do we help them develop into strong productive people by saying: "There's a safety net for you. The taxpayers will support you and your children, but that support will be limited, will last for 5 years max, and will be there only if you make a serious effort to support yourself."
That's the question.
The argument that "The available jobs are demeaning" isn't persuasive to those of us who are working to fund payments to people who won't take those "demeaning" jobs -- especially when we would take those demeaning jobs ourselves if necessary to support ourselves and our families.
Nor is the argument that "A person's decision whether to have a child is a personal decision" very persuasive. That argument makes good sense if can support that child yourself, or can rely on family members or friends to support your child. But if you're going to ask society to support your child, society has a right to set limits and conditions. Frankly, I doubt there are many "family members and friends" who wouldn't set such limits and conditions.
18
Why are able-bodied people allowed to receive welfare in the first place? They should not be getting free money when they could be working and contributing to society. They are setting a poor example for their children who often repeat the same behavior as the welfare recipient and the cycle goes on and on. Unfortunately, many of those receiving welfare have never had any positive role models in their lives. Welfare should be reserved for the truly needy and not those who feel they are entitled to a free handout.
34
Totally canned opinion. I remember the same claims from forty years ago.
You are assuming that there are jobs to be had, that they pay a living wage, that a poor person has adequate public transportation to get to work, that affordable child care is available, that an illness won't mean loss of that job or a crushing medical bill or bankruptcy.
4
So what if you worked your whole life, paid taxes, lose your job and get divorced? Does that mean you have no right to apply for those benefits? And for how long should you get them? Sounds like a slippery slope to me. And children, should not suffer for choices that adults make.
This is not about role models. No one wants to be broke while working odd shifts flipping burgers, paying taxes into programs that deny them assistance because they make not enough to live on but too much to qualify for help.
You've got people working 50 hours a week who get food stamps. That's crazy. If your working more than 30 hours a week you should be able to survive on the salary. Most can't. This is why Fight for $15 is such a big deal. The minimum wage is too low. The federal poverty line is antiquated. No one can live on that little money in this country anymore.
As American citizens either we take care of our own or we don't. I want to know why so much is collected and so little is actually given. Where is the rest?
You want to stop free handouts? Then stop giving Walmart tax breaks for paying so low that their workers need state assistance. Why do we tax a certain amount of salary for SSI and not all of it? Why do we not means test for certain tax breaks? We penalize the poor and exalt the rich.
Then folks wonder why the populism has grown so fast. Because many do not know or understand how welfare, working poverty and taxation creates this whole underclass of scapegoats.
This is not about role models. No one wants to be broke while working odd shifts flipping burgers, paying taxes into programs that deny them assistance because they make not enough to live on but too much to qualify for help.
You've got people working 50 hours a week who get food stamps. That's crazy. If your working more than 30 hours a week you should be able to survive on the salary. Most can't. This is why Fight for $15 is such a big deal. The minimum wage is too low. The federal poverty line is antiquated. No one can live on that little money in this country anymore.
As American citizens either we take care of our own or we don't. I want to know why so much is collected and so little is actually given. Where is the rest?
You want to stop free handouts? Then stop giving Walmart tax breaks for paying so low that their workers need state assistance. Why do we tax a certain amount of salary for SSI and not all of it? Why do we not means test for certain tax breaks? We penalize the poor and exalt the rich.
Then folks wonder why the populism has grown so fast. Because many do not know or understand how welfare, working poverty and taxation creates this whole underclass of scapegoats.
2
In 2015 HRC gave a speech at a 501(c)3 charity organization called The American Camp Association. This organization asks for donations on its website in order to send less fortunate children to day camp for $50 per day.
HRC was paid $260,000 to give that speech. Had she given an hour of her time pro bono, over a half million kids could have experienced the enrichment of camp.
I do not believe for one second that HRC or Bill give a darn about children or the poor.
HRC was paid $260,000 to give that speech. Had she given an hour of her time pro bono, over a half million kids could have experienced the enrichment of camp.
I do not believe for one second that HRC or Bill give a darn about children or the poor.
20
Part of the legacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who will no doubt dodge or disavow responsibility only as long as she is still seeking the Democratic nomination.
4
But that's the nature of politics isn't it?
When the Clinton administration did something right, she gets to take credit for her husband's success.
When criticized for something the Clinton administration did, she can claim that she was only the First Lady and didn't have a say in the matter. Or blame those evil republicans in Congress. ]
Those of us who have been around long enough have gotten used to it.
When the Clinton administration did something right, she gets to take credit for her husband's success.
When criticized for something the Clinton administration did, she can claim that she was only the First Lady and didn't have a say in the matter. Or blame those evil republicans in Congress. ]
Those of us who have been around long enough have gotten used to it.
3
I find it telling that what this woman first thought was I need help again. In my generation our first thought was I need to get another job.
People these days do not want to work, they want to get paid. There is a difference.
People these days do not want to work, they want to get paid. There is a difference.
20
The problem as I see it is not extending payments of a few hundred dollars to continue assistance to needy families ... it's all the additional programs that unfortunately continue the cycle of poverty. We have created whole areas where single mothers raising children is the norm .. all permissible with government assistance and no fathers. We also have the equivalent of the military industrial complex ... in assistance to the poor and family services.
I feel so for the young girls. I volunteer within the inner city ... it's so hard to convince young girls that a whole world is out there.
I feel so for the young girls. I volunteer within the inner city ... it's so hard to convince young girls that a whole world is out there.
8
A sad state of affairs! Inflation has eroded the purchasing power of the welfare over 20 years. The Federal Reserve is targeting a goal of 2% inflation annually as their goal! Janet Yellen and her ilk are part of the problem with their crazy interest rate policies.
2
I can assure you that most readers will be thrilled if inflation is only 2% for the foreseeable future. It's been low lately, but it was much, much higher decades ago.
1
"When did having kids you can't afford become a "right" that the rest of us have to pay for?"
Many people reading this article probably don't know that this "right" indeed used to exist. The welfare-reform law essentially declared that society has a right to set limits on how much help it will give, for how long, and on what conditions.
Many say a society should be judged on how well it treats its less fortunate members, but that argument can be pushed too far. "Society" means taxpayers -- either current taxpayers, or our grandchildren if we borrow the money used to fund current payments. We may have a duty to provide for the less fortunate among us, but we also have a right to require that recipients of that aid do their part to change their situation. It may be different in other parts of the country, but I could walk out my front door right now and, within 15 minutes, see 15 signs reading "Now Hiring." Those signs may disappear in tough times, but they're certainly out there now. I see nothing wrong with requiring that a welfare recipient walk into one of those places and say "I notice from your sign that you're hiring. I'm looking for a job. Can you tell me what you have?"
Many people reading this article probably don't know that this "right" indeed used to exist. The welfare-reform law essentially declared that society has a right to set limits on how much help it will give, for how long, and on what conditions.
Many say a society should be judged on how well it treats its less fortunate members, but that argument can be pushed too far. "Society" means taxpayers -- either current taxpayers, or our grandchildren if we borrow the money used to fund current payments. We may have a duty to provide for the less fortunate among us, but we also have a right to require that recipients of that aid do their part to change their situation. It may be different in other parts of the country, but I could walk out my front door right now and, within 15 minutes, see 15 signs reading "Now Hiring." Those signs may disappear in tough times, but they're certainly out there now. I see nothing wrong with requiring that a welfare recipient walk into one of those places and say "I notice from your sign that you're hiring. I'm looking for a job. Can you tell me what you have?"
14
The ignorance revealed in this comments section is astounding. Bill Clinton is not solely responsible for poverty in the Black community (that has taken centuries of institutionalized racism). One must not forget the Republican Congress he dealt with . That said, I never agreed with the "welfare reform" bill because its intention was never to end poverty (too many rich people and municipalities make a fortune off the poor). Clearly the notion of "I am my brother's keeper" is long gone in this society. The myth of pulling oneself up by the bootstraps is just that, a myth. We could deal with intergenerational poverty it we wanted to - but we would rather feed the military industrial complex and allow Apple to hide billions in offshore accounts. Also, the implicit assumption (the picture did not help) that only Black people are on welfare is ridiculous.
10
You are not totally incorrect but the vast majority of welfare recipients are single parent households. Why don't we just pass a law that requires dad to stick around when he gets someone pregnant. this way there would be fewer single parent households.
Statistics don't lie, marriage is the greatest predictor of wealth in the US.
Statistics don't lie, marriage is the greatest predictor of wealth in the US.
2
The benchmark for a culture and society is NOT how well they treat the winners but how they treat the least advantaged members of that society. The folks at the top of the pile got there on the backs of the people below. For a so-called Christian Nation, this is anything but. Jesus said "Feed the hungry, heal the sick" and Love one another." That certainly wasn't at the heart of the Clintons Welfare Reform.
13
So we should just pool all the money we give to charities and cede it to the federal government because it can be trusted to do what's right?
Seriously, wait until at least happy hour to start hitting the bong.
in gross dollars and a percentage of GDP, the US is the most charitable country in the world. 3X as charitable as the country ranked second. Is paying your taxes a charitable act? I do believe we have an obligation to support just laws and leaders but this doesn't mean they are infallible. This doesn't mean governments are going to do what's right.
Think about it like this. Let's say instead of donating $1000 worth of food to your local food bank, you chose to pay $1000 more than you owed in income tax. In which instance is your $1000 doing the most good?
When the penalty for NOT doing something (i.e. paying your taxes) is jail time, it is not a charitable act.
Seriously, wait until at least happy hour to start hitting the bong.
in gross dollars and a percentage of GDP, the US is the most charitable country in the world. 3X as charitable as the country ranked second. Is paying your taxes a charitable act? I do believe we have an obligation to support just laws and leaders but this doesn't mean they are infallible. This doesn't mean governments are going to do what's right.
Think about it like this. Let's say instead of donating $1000 worth of food to your local food bank, you chose to pay $1000 more than you owed in income tax. In which instance is your $1000 doing the most good?
When the penalty for NOT doing something (i.e. paying your taxes) is jail time, it is not a charitable act.
1
Reporters would do their readers a great service if they were to take at least an elementary course in statistics. This article reflects that lack of training and a failure to dig into the facts. It also reflects political correctness in its failure to ask questions that should be asked.
Skipping the math for a moment, if the reporter and Ms. Robinson are going to lay a guilt trip on the reader isn’t it fair that on behalf of the people footing her bills he ask her “was she ever married and where is the husband?”. NO REPORTER EVER ASKS; a failure of journalism school!
Furthermore Mr. Pear plays loose and fancy with it’s statistics. On this I might be mistaken, but I was told that while there is a five year limit on some payments, the clock is reset when a new child is born. Thus, women once their child becomes of school age, immediately have another baby.
Another figure always missing is the cost of education. Being involved in local politics I know that on average 50% of local budgets goes to school’s – the cost on average is $10,000 per year per student. Ms Robinson no doubt is unaware.
Then of course there are rental assistance, medical assistance.
Currently 1 out of every 2 children under the age of 5 is on some form of welfare. Which means that those least able to afford it are having on average far more children than those who can.
That’s a problem.
Skipping the math for a moment, if the reporter and Ms. Robinson are going to lay a guilt trip on the reader isn’t it fair that on behalf of the people footing her bills he ask her “was she ever married and where is the husband?”. NO REPORTER EVER ASKS; a failure of journalism school!
Furthermore Mr. Pear plays loose and fancy with it’s statistics. On this I might be mistaken, but I was told that while there is a five year limit on some payments, the clock is reset when a new child is born. Thus, women once their child becomes of school age, immediately have another baby.
Another figure always missing is the cost of education. Being involved in local politics I know that on average 50% of local budgets goes to school’s – the cost on average is $10,000 per year per student. Ms Robinson no doubt is unaware.
Then of course there are rental assistance, medical assistance.
Currently 1 out of every 2 children under the age of 5 is on some form of welfare. Which means that those least able to afford it are having on average far more children than those who can.
That’s a problem.
17
Furthermore Mr. Pear plays loose and fancy with it’s statistics?
You would do everyone a great service if you were to take at least an elementary course in English, Ben.
Try "with his statistics," won't you? Even if you were referring to the article, your "it's" would denote the poorly educated person that you are, for "its" would then be the correct possessive adjective (also called "determiner") to use.
(There are other solecisms in the nonsense that you wrote, Ben.)
You would do everyone a great service if you were to take at least an elementary course in English, Ben.
Try "with his statistics," won't you? Even if you were referring to the article, your "it's" would denote the poorly educated person that you are, for "its" would then be the correct possessive adjective (also called "determiner") to use.
(There are other solecisms in the nonsense that you wrote, Ben.)
2
Ceterum censeo – i appreciate your sensitivity to grammar, but your chosen sobriquet emphases your valuation of appearance over substance -
I am sure my English high school teacher would agree with you. But i think it would be more accurate to say I suffer more from a lack of time than a lack of understanding of grammar. I have put my time in to studying Strunk and White’s ‘The Elements of Style’ and when necessary can write as such.
By contrast the reporter Mr. pear is a highly paid reporter for a very prestigious newspaper to say the least.
The article fails to clarify but rather obfuscates critical information pertinent to the issue of support for the indigent. Particularly as it effects working people - tax payers.
For instance omitted – was she ever married, does she have other children. What is the average life time size of a family on welfare?
I have an advanced degree in economics and i don’t need a twirpy name to impress. It’s not about me , it’s about getting at the truth. I post because seems too many of the people such as yourself are so far removed from reality. I write to get some truth out there.
Hopefully Mr. Pear will pick up on the points raised. You on the other hand sound so full of yourself it’s likely a lost cause. ‘ censorious politically correctness must be ended’
I am sure my English high school teacher would agree with you. But i think it would be more accurate to say I suffer more from a lack of time than a lack of understanding of grammar. I have put my time in to studying Strunk and White’s ‘The Elements of Style’ and when necessary can write as such.
By contrast the reporter Mr. pear is a highly paid reporter for a very prestigious newspaper to say the least.
The article fails to clarify but rather obfuscates critical information pertinent to the issue of support for the indigent. Particularly as it effects working people - tax payers.
For instance omitted – was she ever married, does she have other children. What is the average life time size of a family on welfare?
I have an advanced degree in economics and i don’t need a twirpy name to impress. It’s not about me , it’s about getting at the truth. I post because seems too many of the people such as yourself are so far removed from reality. I write to get some truth out there.
Hopefully Mr. Pear will pick up on the points raised. You on the other hand sound so full of yourself it’s likely a lost cause. ‘ censorious politically correctness must be ended’
4
Another biased and absurd article in the NYT.
No woman in America is raising children with $220/month or what have you.
The women in this article are receiving thousands of dollars/year in Medicaid. Thousands of dollars/year in housing assistance. Thousands in child support. Thousands in food stamps and WIC. Groceries and closing assistance from multiple charities. And the vast majority of them has at lease some "off-the-books" income. A large proportion of them also get thousands/year in Earned Income Tax Credit.
Put it all together, a very, very poor single-woman-led family in America has a total income that is higher than the median income in the US.
No woman in America is raising children with $220/month or what have you.
The women in this article are receiving thousands of dollars/year in Medicaid. Thousands of dollars/year in housing assistance. Thousands in child support. Thousands in food stamps and WIC. Groceries and closing assistance from multiple charities. And the vast majority of them has at lease some "off-the-books" income. A large proportion of them also get thousands/year in Earned Income Tax Credit.
Put it all together, a very, very poor single-woman-led family in America has a total income that is higher than the median income in the US.
25
You are partially correct. Omitting 'in kind' benefits fails to demonstrate the full amount of public support available. I am not sure the entire package would exceed the median household income in the U.S. However, it is not as negligible as the distortion of $220/month would lead one to believe.
2
The article talks about single moms but ignores single dads under the same strains. One of the biggest problems in our current system is the shared parenting laws that alienate fathers from their families and contribute to the welfare problem. When a person discusses the dead-beat-dad stereotype, people applaud and accept it. Fathers are not the problem. Our courts actually contribute to welfare dependency by separating fathers from their children, giving them less time with their children, and even removing their children from any time if the father loses his job and the resultant drop in payments. Often the father, who loses his job, can pick up more of the home responsibilities until he finds a new job, just like mom. If we improve shared parenting laws, we will allow fathers and mothers equal time with their children and equal time to arrange their work schedules. This cuts down on child care costs and welfare costs. Fathers go years paying for their children, as they should, but in many instances receive less time with their children, which is unfair. How does a good father feel when his time with his children is diminished by courts that expect more from him financially but less from him as a father? This contributes to a host of problems that need discussions in another article.
11
Of course it is hatred of people of color who are poor. Bill Clinton has been accorded this mysterious love of the African American community in America. He left the poor to the tender mercies of reactionary state legislatures which is a recipe for not addressing their needs. Of course for Clinton this was bit of tour de force triangulation. As with most Democrats its about winning elections. And during the Clinton era getting campaign contributions by smoozing with the likes of Ken Lay and Marc Rich.
6
If it's any consolation, it used to be even worse:
"A single mother...and a heroine addict are all essentially treated the same by service agencies."
Years ago (1971), a self-described "vagabond" told me he'd received federally-funded food stamps in Hilo, Hawaii – for himself and 7 "friends" - at the same time a single mother with four children was turned down. Her application had been denied, he said, because she'd listed some other income. His application initially had been denied because he'd failed to list a Hilo address. He was told it was acceptable simply to list "City Park," which he promptly did. He was given food stamps for himself and 7 friends who lived with him in the City Park. He said he'd listed only the first names of such "friends" on his application. Since he actually had only 2 such "friends," he said, they ended up with more food stamps than they could use for food. They used the extras to pay for drugs, he said. Though food stamps were not as liquid as cash, of course, they nevertheless had become a form of "currency" for most drug dealers, since they and many of their customers could use food stamps in lieu of cash for many purchases.
That was long before welfare reform, and also before the "state block grant" days. States were allotted federally-funded food stamps based strictly on population, and apparently Hawaii got more than it needed. It was able to hand them out fairly freely to "vagabonds" and their real or imaginary friends.
"A single mother...and a heroine addict are all essentially treated the same by service agencies."
Years ago (1971), a self-described "vagabond" told me he'd received federally-funded food stamps in Hilo, Hawaii – for himself and 7 "friends" - at the same time a single mother with four children was turned down. Her application had been denied, he said, because she'd listed some other income. His application initially had been denied because he'd failed to list a Hilo address. He was told it was acceptable simply to list "City Park," which he promptly did. He was given food stamps for himself and 7 friends who lived with him in the City Park. He said he'd listed only the first names of such "friends" on his application. Since he actually had only 2 such "friends," he said, they ended up with more food stamps than they could use for food. They used the extras to pay for drugs, he said. Though food stamps were not as liquid as cash, of course, they nevertheless had become a form of "currency" for most drug dealers, since they and many of their customers could use food stamps in lieu of cash for many purchases.
That was long before welfare reform, and also before the "state block grant" days. States were allotted federally-funded food stamps based strictly on population, and apparently Hawaii got more than it needed. It was able to hand them out fairly freely to "vagabonds" and their real or imaginary friends.
6
We have poverty like we have wars; they pay - to the 'right' people.
4
I know people with 5 kids who work and struggle, why they had 5 kids I do not know. Very foolish decisions, now they all suffer.
17
Marian Wright Edelman's husband, Peter Edelman, resigned from the Clinton Administration over this and explained why in his article, "The Worst Thing Bill Clinton Has Done" http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1997/03/the-worst-thing-bill... in The Atlantic:
the President's quandary was one of his own making. He had put himself there, quite deliberately and by a series of steps that he had taken over a long period of time.
Governor Clinton campaigned in 1992 on the promise to “end welfare as we know it” and the companion phrase “Two years and you’re off.”
the President's quandary was one of his own making. He had put himself there, quite deliberately and by a series of steps that he had taken over a long period of time.
Governor Clinton campaigned in 1992 on the promise to “end welfare as we know it” and the companion phrase “Two years and you’re off.”
4
What sickness causes people to grow up believing they are entitled to my money to raise their kids?
24
Well, there is the very core of the problem. How should this "sickness" be effectively addressed? By what means? Simply turn off the spigot? Without the actual pathway to employment such a real remedy might yield violence. Bill Clinton was pushed to revise the laws, as I understand it, by Mr Gingrich and company. And back then there were many jobs to be had. The current breed of democrats are simply not going to stimulate the economy effectively by tax cuts to business and those who pull pay checks. I suspect they like keeping people unemployed -- so as to keep them voting democratic.
2
The "sickness" is called patriotism.
1
why do people with no money continue to have kids?
34
They may have had the kids before the need arose. For example, one parent households where one parent has left the rest of the family high and dry.
6
That's a good point. Why isn't this addressed in the article?
7
The third rail of social welfare discussions. Suggesting that welfare recipients refrain from reproducing because of their impoverishment invokes thoughts of racism, as well as social Darwinism at best and eugenics at worst. If poor people choose not to have children, they can do that, and that may be the only ethically appropriate response -- let choice remain with those who bear the children.
52% of California. 50% may do too
2
Dear New York Times Editors,
I am very confused. You have, since 2008, presented a dirge of articles and editorial content making HRC the presumptive Democratic nominee for president in 2016. Bernie has always been framed as a quixotic fringe candidate - amusing but "he can't win" - and of course all Republican candidates have been excoriated as foolish, mean, racist, and extreme. NOW - when the path to the presidency is greased, you start to pick through Hillary's accomplishments and inform us that, in fact, the administration that makes up almost all of her claim on being qualified for the presidency (she was a do-nothing US Senator who voted for the wrong war at the wrong time and now blames someone else and she was an inept Secretary of State whose legacy is at best that she and Obama let opportunities slip away (the Arab Spring; North Korea).
Don't waffle now! We're all in with Hillary. The Clinton legacy is "great economy, welfare reform, healthcare {I'm sorry, you're breaking up), and peace." Don't shed light on that at this point, please.
Can you take this story down?
I am very confused. You have, since 2008, presented a dirge of articles and editorial content making HRC the presumptive Democratic nominee for president in 2016. Bernie has always been framed as a quixotic fringe candidate - amusing but "he can't win" - and of course all Republican candidates have been excoriated as foolish, mean, racist, and extreme. NOW - when the path to the presidency is greased, you start to pick through Hillary's accomplishments and inform us that, in fact, the administration that makes up almost all of her claim on being qualified for the presidency (she was a do-nothing US Senator who voted for the wrong war at the wrong time and now blames someone else and she was an inept Secretary of State whose legacy is at best that she and Obama let opportunities slip away (the Arab Spring; North Korea).
Don't waffle now! We're all in with Hillary. The Clinton legacy is "great economy, welfare reform, healthcare {I'm sorry, you're breaking up), and peace." Don't shed light on that at this point, please.
Can you take this story down?
9
(1) If any of those who are able wot work get food stamps, if they get Medicaid, if they get welfare cash ....then EVERY post-puberty female in the household getting such things should be given a choice
* birth control implant
* IUD
* sterilization (if over 21 when chosen as the option
ANd once there is a long-acting male birth control, the father who bred the kids gets the same choices if any kid he breed ends up on assistance - unless he will take the kid & provide for it.
(2) if they can't feed the kids they breed, if they can't house the kids they breed, then they shouldn't keep the kids.
They should be forced to give up the kids who would be placed for adoption.
That is how it use to work for centuries - my great-great-grandmother had to place her children when my great-great-grandfather died & she couldn't provide for 4 kids.
Now we have the idiotic meme that 'ohh ahh - we have to keep families together no matter how uneducated, how dysfunctional, how incompetent they are at providing for the kids they breed." Result? = 95%+ of the kids grow up with an inadequate education and end up just like the parents.
(3) All those who get assistance who are able to work, should have to spend 10 hours per week applying for jobs & 30 hours a week picking up trash or babysitting the kids of others on assistance who are doing the 'job search' time. No high school degree? They should have to finish high school in a timely manner (school not the worthless GED)
* birth control implant
* IUD
* sterilization (if over 21 when chosen as the option
ANd once there is a long-acting male birth control, the father who bred the kids gets the same choices if any kid he breed ends up on assistance - unless he will take the kid & provide for it.
(2) if they can't feed the kids they breed, if they can't house the kids they breed, then they shouldn't keep the kids.
They should be forced to give up the kids who would be placed for adoption.
That is how it use to work for centuries - my great-great-grandmother had to place her children when my great-great-grandfather died & she couldn't provide for 4 kids.
Now we have the idiotic meme that 'ohh ahh - we have to keep families together no matter how uneducated, how dysfunctional, how incompetent they are at providing for the kids they breed." Result? = 95%+ of the kids grow up with an inadequate education and end up just like the parents.
(3) All those who get assistance who are able to work, should have to spend 10 hours per week applying for jobs & 30 hours a week picking up trash or babysitting the kids of others on assistance who are doing the 'job search' time. No high school degree? They should have to finish high school in a timely manner (school not the worthless GED)
22
If nothing else I have a lawn that needs mowing. Why can't welfare recipients work for us taxpayers?
3
I am sure many on welfare would love to have any job. I remember seeing hundreds in the Wisconsin capital building demanding Scott Walker give them a job so they could get food and other government aid. Walker had to get the law changed since there weren't any jobs for even 10 of these people. Wisconsin is not unique.
You can view the military as a sort of welfare program for the foreign countries that our bases protect. The budget for the military might also be viewed as a least Keynesian. It surely isn't our borders we're protecting from any threats unless you view desperate for survival Mexicans as some sort of a threat. And, sending probes at billions of dollars to Pluto? Who's that a welfare program for? College grads will find all sorts of supplements to their path towards survival in the way of thinking about whether we really need what they're selling. Then there's the Clintons, you couldn't invent a more fraudulent pair of excuses for representing the poor. Speaking fees, consulting, sitting on boards, trustees, all just the tools for networking their way to fattening up how they operate. Out at the edges, every time the word Work or Earn is used, there should be a footnote describing just what you mean by the word, because if hard Work, the kind that sends you home aching at the end of the day made you rich my parents, maybe yours would have been multi millionaires. Supply and demand and Merit, the more you pull the curtains back and examine their by products are two divergent concepts in this stage of the game. Take your thumbs out of your suspenders because "an honest days work" is like Art, whatever you want to believe.
1
The Times should pursue the topic of poverty. Clearly a good portion of the readership does not understand anything about it nor are they concerned.
10
It's not that difficult to understand. If you don't have enough money, simply spend less or earn more.
10
When did having kids you can't afford become a "right" that the rest of us have to pay for? Single mom? She didn't get pregnant by herself so she isnt single. We keep hearing about people being responsible for their actions, yet the most important action anyone ever takes, bringing a child into the the world, is treated as some kind of cosmic accident. We need to start early and pay young women NOT to get pregnant until they get an education and a job. Then, perhaps they can have all these kids they seem to have before they can even take care of themselves. Maybe by then they'll figure out Romeo isn't going to be around after the party and they'll help their daughters learn the same hard lesson.
60
I agree with your responsibility sentiment but people are not going to stop having children. It is a human drive and our desire for small families (even for the wealthy, who use vastly more resources affecting the environment) is not universal. Neither is delayed gratification.
2
so everybody should just do what they're "human drive" tells them to. After all, were not sentient, thinking beings. Look around. That has really worked up to this point.
Besides, nobody said "stop having children". Many people limit their family size now for a variety of reasons: finances, the environment, their careers, their ability to care for them responsibly etc. To ask responsible people to do that but also pay for other people's irresponsibility is not reasonable, fair or in anyone's best interests.
Besides, nobody said "stop having children". Many people limit their family size now for a variety of reasons: finances, the environment, their careers, their ability to care for them responsibly etc. To ask responsible people to do that but also pay for other people's irresponsibility is not reasonable, fair or in anyone's best interests.
Al Trease's comment is the smartest one on this page. Where did the concept of "right to have children" (and the rest of us have to pay) come from? And the answer is that that right does not exist. Jobs, education and a good life plan come first and then if it all falls into place and children can clearly be afforded as well as loved and cared for properly, then breeding can be next. In any case, times are changing and the planet is overrun by humans to the point of destruction of many forms of life and so we should all be thinking about how we as a civilization are going to (quickly now!! or we'll lose our chance) reduce the human population in order to lead the important work of saving all life on earth.
2
How naive that many automatically blame Republicans for being "harsh" or "mean". The liberal political model ultimately enslaves and undermines those it pretends (or intends) to help.
-Liberal encouragement (or tolerance) of illegal immigration creates a vast pool of low skill/no skill workers who take the very jobs the U.S. poor need. Not just farm jobs (which U.S. workers hate) but restaurant, factory and construction jobs. Also, the illegal immigrants themselves are poorly treated, underpaid and become effectively second class citizens. But yes, let's allow more undocumented immigrants in!
-US companies would be less likely to relocate overseas (and take jobs with them) if there were a better tax structure for all Americans, including businesses. Literally trillions of dollars of profits are parked overseas because companies don't want to pay a high tax rate. That money could be spent on new factories and jobs in the U.S.
-Liberal education polices (as Mayor de Blasio's in NYC) actively avoid disciplining disruptive, even violent public school students, lowering the standards for all and make a high school degree worthless. Teachers are not encouraged to hold any students back because it will reflect poorly on the mythical graduation rate with its hollow diploma.
-Liberal protection of teacher unions allows bad teachers to remain unaccountable, again lowering education standards.
But yes, let's blame the Republicans because they ask for some accountability!
-Liberal encouragement (or tolerance) of illegal immigration creates a vast pool of low skill/no skill workers who take the very jobs the U.S. poor need. Not just farm jobs (which U.S. workers hate) but restaurant, factory and construction jobs. Also, the illegal immigrants themselves are poorly treated, underpaid and become effectively second class citizens. But yes, let's allow more undocumented immigrants in!
-US companies would be less likely to relocate overseas (and take jobs with them) if there were a better tax structure for all Americans, including businesses. Literally trillions of dollars of profits are parked overseas because companies don't want to pay a high tax rate. That money could be spent on new factories and jobs in the U.S.
-Liberal education polices (as Mayor de Blasio's in NYC) actively avoid disciplining disruptive, even violent public school students, lowering the standards for all and make a high school degree worthless. Teachers are not encouraged to hold any students back because it will reflect poorly on the mythical graduation rate with its hollow diploma.
-Liberal protection of teacher unions allows bad teachers to remain unaccountable, again lowering education standards.
But yes, let's blame the Republicans because they ask for some accountability!
10
Bill Clinton ran for President in 1992 promising to 'end welfare as we know it.'
That was an explicit promise.
Many of people commenting on this article voted for Clinton in 1992, knowing he had made that promise.
Yet, when Clinton (eventually) signed the Welfare Reform Act, many of his supporters - who had voted for him in 1992 knowing he had explicitly promised to 'end welfare as we know it - were angry at him, and still are, apparently.
And of course many of those same people voted to re-elect Clinton in 1996.
That was an explicit promise.
Many of people commenting on this article voted for Clinton in 1992, knowing he had made that promise.
Yet, when Clinton (eventually) signed the Welfare Reform Act, many of his supporters - who had voted for him in 1992 knowing he had explicitly promised to 'end welfare as we know it - were angry at him, and still are, apparently.
And of course many of those same people voted to re-elect Clinton in 1996.
3
"Centrist" all depends on the width of the ideological road. Lunatic fringes on one side move the center--especially if well marketed.
As does the lunatic right wing in the USA. American revolutionary fervor is taught to all grade school kids--championing freedom from foreign government; the lunatic fringe perverts it as the "liberty" elixir--outweighing life itself. Turning freedom from foreign government into freedom from government. And using that as a ruse to market plutocracy--subjugation to the rich--as elixir freedom.
A ideological magic trick second only to marketing the torture and death of Jesus as a god's love of humans.
Clinton was never "centrist" by reasonable standards--he was shilling for the plutocrats while pretending to be a democrat--one who advocates government for the common people. His "Third Way" was a scam.
The other American delusion is government of and by the people justifies all. All forms of government are OF and BY people. "The people" in Lincoln's address meant "common people"--not the aristocrats--those with great inherited wealth--who will let some trickle down if you submit and obey them.
Hill Billy Clinton--a nouveau riche--got that way by pretending to be "centrist"
As does the lunatic right wing in the USA. American revolutionary fervor is taught to all grade school kids--championing freedom from foreign government; the lunatic fringe perverts it as the "liberty" elixir--outweighing life itself. Turning freedom from foreign government into freedom from government. And using that as a ruse to market plutocracy--subjugation to the rich--as elixir freedom.
A ideological magic trick second only to marketing the torture and death of Jesus as a god's love of humans.
Clinton was never "centrist" by reasonable standards--he was shilling for the plutocrats while pretending to be a democrat--one who advocates government for the common people. His "Third Way" was a scam.
The other American delusion is government of and by the people justifies all. All forms of government are OF and BY people. "The people" in Lincoln's address meant "common people"--not the aristocrats--those with great inherited wealth--who will let some trickle down if you submit and obey them.
Hill Billy Clinton--a nouveau riche--got that way by pretending to be "centrist"
4
I resent being described as "swept up" by anything but alas, I am not the editor.
Great, "Welfare to work" "worked" for one decade but is now faltering and is being abused by many red states. Bernie's long term judgement is looking pretty good on this one too!
11:48AM
Great, "Welfare to work" "worked" for one decade but is now faltering and is being abused by many red states. Bernie's long term judgement is looking pretty good on this one too!
11:48AM
3
I'd point out that the people who want women and kids simply kicked off welfare and left to fend for themselves are every bit as crazy as the people who think we're somehow going to round up and deport eleven million people.
Skip the moral issues: this is just plain stupid.
And by the way--this current stuff's on state governments such as Arizona's, not the Clintons.
Skip the moral issues: this is just plain stupid.
And by the way--this current stuff's on state governments such as Arizona's, not the Clintons.
3
"The 1996 Welfare Act shows us how much we can achieve when both parties bring their best ideas to the negotiating table and focus on doing what is best for the country."
This is a quot from an editorial written by Bill Clinton in the NYT 10 years ago.
He also says. "Welfare reform has proved a great success, and I am grateful to the Democrats and Republicans who had the courage to work together to take bold action."
This doesn't sound to me like someone looking to blame state legislatures. Sound to me like someone who is proud of his administration's success.
This is a quot from an editorial written by Bill Clinton in the NYT 10 years ago.
He also says. "Welfare reform has proved a great success, and I am grateful to the Democrats and Republicans who had the courage to work together to take bold action."
This doesn't sound to me like someone looking to blame state legislatures. Sound to me like someone who is proud of his administration's success.
Many people in our country now are between a rock and hard place. It's really awful. This article profiles the problem. However, the remedy and cause lies squarely at the feet of our current president. The real numbers of the unemployed (far greater than the spun numbers he and his administration put out) clearly show how unresponsive the economy is. So what is to be done? Collect more and more taxes in order to subsidize more and more people who are out of work? Of course, that is the socialist model. Our model is to stimulate more job creation. Let us hope our new president will do just that.
6
Temporary means temporary. Part of the problem is that welfare is given to people based on their reported income. Like the ugly rich, people figure out how to game the system. And too many do because of changes since 1996 to the welfare laws. We don't have reform at the national level anymore; we have snap for anyone, free lunches - no questions asked.
Does anyone realize that those truly in need receive so little because there is only so much to go around and the bulk now goes to anyone?
Does anyone realize that those truly in need receive so little because there is only so much to go around and the bulk now goes to anyone?
8
Welfare was designed to be a helping hand, a hand up, not a hand out and certainly not a lifestyle. I agree that welfare should not be easy to get, there should be hoops to jump through and markers or milestones, and yes, limits. But, it's very difficult to condone this when at the same time we are spending who knows how much (too much), on housing illegal immigrants, especially minors who will be here for years, and spending another truckload of money on refugees. The people in this story are Americans, who in some cases have done what was expected of them and still cannot catch a break, or make ends meet. Where do they go? How do they live? The AZ law is not helping, it's punishing some of our vulnerable citizens. As fro The Pampered Princess of Park Ridge, Mrs.Clinton, she has no concept of what it is like out there for the unemployed and the underemployed. Nor has Mr.Clinton. Mayeb they need to walk a mile in someone's shoes...
3
The problem is that one year is to short if you need to retrain and re-educate yourself for the jobs that are available. I'm a physician and I once meet a nurse who lived on welfare and government assistance for the four years she was in nursing school paid for by government grants. She had four children and her husband just simply abandoned them. She was a terrific nurse and proud of her work. Tell me, who was going to help her?
Government assistance should be a helping hand, not a hand out, and the recipients must be held accountable. But one year is simply to short.
Government assistance should be a helping hand, not a hand out, and the recipients must be held accountable. But one year is simply to short.
6
Money and access to birth control and abortion is not the answer. Many poor men and women want children, as has been reported in this Opinion Section:
”The sociologist Kathryn Edin has shown that unlike their more educated peers, these younger, low-income women tend to stop using contraception several weeks or months after starting a sexual relationship.”
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/08/how-single-motherhood-hu...
”The sociologist Kathryn Edin has shown that unlike their more educated peers, these younger, low-income women tend to stop using contraception several weeks or months after starting a sexual relationship.”
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/08/how-single-motherhood-hu...
6
Could the reason some poor women and men desire children is the fact that these children bring with them substantial financial benefits such as access to free or almost free housing, more food stamps, access to food pantries, access to clothing and furniture donations, school breakfasts, lunches, Medicare and job training programs for mom, if she is interested. All these "benefits" cost taxpayers a lot of money. It is the working poor who are the most hurt by these programs. Perhaps if Kathryn Edin worked at a low paying, job - standing on her feet for 40-50+ hours per week she would more clearly understand the voters' anger with the welfare system as it currently operates.
11
Should the government and taxpayers subsidize people who want children but can't afford them? I vote no.
8
Why do they want children? Something is wrong with this culture that they are defying logic by wanting kids they know they cannot afford to care for.
6
We should absolutely be lending a helping hand to those in need such as those facing tragedy, extreme disability and adversity. However that helping hand, for the most part, cannot and should not go on for a lifetime or as in some cases, for generations. There is so much fraud going on in our current programs that it difficult not to become jaded. And if you don't think there is an enormous amount of welfare fraud going on, you are delusional.
13
Please cite the source of your info on how much fraud is going on. Easy to say, show me the data.
4
Very, very little fraud in proportion to the aid. Another false flag, another lie of repression.
1
This has recently been in the news in Massachusetts, and I would bet that this occurs in every state.
http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/02/state_auditor_flags_1...
http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/02/state_auditor_flags_1...
1
Poverty level calculations only include pre tax income. Non cash benefits such as housing vouchers, food stamps, WIC benefits, free school b'fast & lunch, summer feeding programs, Medicaid etc. are not counted. This article misinforms by not providing a comprehensive report re. this woman's true financial situation.
17
It was deliberate and conscious -- to exaggerate the problem, and then demand "more money from taxpayers".
In fact, this woman is pulling in more via an welfare income stream than many of EARN working 40 hours a week at real job.
In fact, this woman is pulling in more via an welfare income stream than many of EARN working 40 hours a week at real job.
3
I am not someone anyone would call a bleeding heart. However, there are days in my lives in New York City and Asheville, NC that I could not live on $278 a day, much less the $278 a month cited as the monthly benefit figure in one state per this article. A little legislative balance between reality and some political theory might be welcome.
22
This really hurts the children of people crushed by the economic situation. Many of them have parents who are trying to make ends meet on two part time jobs. Food scarcity continues to be a problem.
The hard core welfare recipients moved onto disability years ago.
The hard core welfare recipients moved onto disability years ago.
16
Welfare reform under Bill Clinton was unnecessary. The law did not help poor people, but rather pushing vulnerable members of society on the brink. Already, more low income Americans are being forced upon to sell plasma blood, collecting scrap metal, live in either homeless shelters or crashing with friends on their couches, exposed to substandard living conditions, worked eight different jobs just to meet ends, exploit by payday lenders and shark loan officers, eat scraps at food banks, and even worse....die prematurely in destitute conditions beyond their own control. The law should had been repealed long ago. It is riddled with racist, hatred, and unchristian overtones against the poor. However, the Democrats were lazy enough to buy into the prejudice rhetoric by the Republicans since the 1990s. They are equally responsible for hurting the poor just as the Republicans. And with an upcoming Presidential election, it is no wonder that there is a widen chasm between Team Sanders versus Team Hillary when it comes to welfare benefits and welfare rights as a whole. People in America shouldn't be living less than two dollar a day or in extreme poverty with a shattered safety net.
4
Sounds like Ms. Robinson will be motivated to find work rather than expect a check in perpetuity. A one-year limit is twice the number of weeks of unemployment insurance so it seems reasonable. What is not reasonable is to expect free money forever.
In NYC between the benefits of Welfare, Food Stamps, Medicaid, Section 8 vouchers, free school lunches, etc it seems that the poor are often better off than the lower middle class taxpayer paying for it all.
In NYC between the benefits of Welfare, Food Stamps, Medicaid, Section 8 vouchers, free school lunches, etc it seems that the poor are often better off than the lower middle class taxpayer paying for it all.
15
Where's the law limiting corporate welfare to one year? When you take into account the amount of money this country doles out to huge profit gobbling companies that then turn around and claim they can't afford to pay a living wage to workers, the amount that goes into the pockets of the poor seems a pittance.
In addition to holding the deadbeat dads accountable, why don't we hold Dickensian employers like Walmart accountable for the costs of their workers Medicaid, food stamps, and other benefits? Benefits their employees can't do without because they are not paid enough to live on, even as a single person, let alone a single mom supporting a child. Just reckon it up every month and take it right out of their profits. Make sure you include the administrative costs associated with keeping track of how many dollar store employees need assistance, and charge the corporations for those costs as well. Then levy a healthy 20% surcharge as an incentive to pay your people a living wage.
The press and the political establishment seem bumfuzzled over the rise of Trump and the fervor of Sanders' supporters. This has been brewing for a long time. Deal with it now, or the people will deal with our political aristocracy later. A storm is coming.
In addition to holding the deadbeat dads accountable, why don't we hold Dickensian employers like Walmart accountable for the costs of their workers Medicaid, food stamps, and other benefits? Benefits their employees can't do without because they are not paid enough to live on, even as a single person, let alone a single mom supporting a child. Just reckon it up every month and take it right out of their profits. Make sure you include the administrative costs associated with keeping track of how many dollar store employees need assistance, and charge the corporations for those costs as well. Then levy a healthy 20% surcharge as an incentive to pay your people a living wage.
The press and the political establishment seem bumfuzzled over the rise of Trump and the fervor of Sanders' supporters. This has been brewing for a long time. Deal with it now, or the people will deal with our political aristocracy later. A storm is coming.
9
It's very reasonable to have time limits for welfare benefits, as long as changes are phased in and economic conditions are considered. I always wonder why impoverished people seem to have more children than those with means. I understand this can be due to religious reasons or a lack of education. However, I feel that people have to be responsible, and understand the consequences of more children, before making a bad situation worse.
10
If single women continue to have babies and do not have the income to care for them, and know the fathers do not either, they should not continue to look to the government to provide for them. This is just reality. It is time that people take personal responsibility for their future and the decisions they make. Generational poverty is fueled in large part by dependence on welfare benefits. Children today have to be able to see that their parents are working, responsible people, so that they too can strive for better. Welfare benefits need to be short-term benefits to help people in emergency situations. People have long survived, even in depressed economic times, without help from the government.
10
The country is in a very different employment situation that it was in 1996 and so is education. Both have been decimated by budget cuts, bad trade agreements, and bad economic policies. College educations were still somewhat affordable pre-1996 and if you had a few years of college you could get a decent job. College is no longer affordable and there are few jobs for graduates. Offshoring and outsourcing work has killed this country due millions of cuts that has bled us dry. The foreign worker visa programs have added more than 65,000 death cuts every year. The H 1B and other programs need to be shut down today. No other country in the world allows floods of foreigners in to take jobs their citizens can do. Every other developed country educates their citizens for the jobs it needs done. Nearly every other nation has tariffs that protect their manufacturers and levels the playing field.
Clinton doesn't get how to fix the problems facing this country because she doesn't live in reality. She has said the most obvious problems are impossible to fix so she won't even try to fix them. Trump will do more harm than good even though he knows the problems, sees solutions, but will not go as far as needed to open the doors of opportunity for the poor. Sadly, this seems to be the best America can do because it is a slave to a plutocracy dressed in a two party democracy costume.
Clinton doesn't get how to fix the problems facing this country because she doesn't live in reality. She has said the most obvious problems are impossible to fix so she won't even try to fix them. Trump will do more harm than good even though he knows the problems, sees solutions, but will not go as far as needed to open the doors of opportunity for the poor. Sadly, this seems to be the best America can do because it is a slave to a plutocracy dressed in a two party democracy costume.
9
This is no surprise tome. I had a job teaching at business school when this Clinton Plan went into effect. Promises of good jobs, ah the nonsense. Those people ended up largely unemployed or under employed or still scraping a wretched 'living'. Oh Ok so the adults can do without, but children---children doing without all in the name of whatever is absolutely unacceptable and inhumane. I have read the book and I must say that I know people who live in this hell of poverty---including children. There is no excuse. It is infuriating and it shows just what we, as a people and nation, really value. Endless super expensive wars that destroy lives here and abroad, endless subtle control of the 'underclasses', an endless failure to recognize the basic human right of every person to a basic and dignified life---really even the children are victims of this Clinton Republican policy. There is little dignity in not having your own place to call home. I have no doubt that Mrs. Clinton, if elected, will further this hideous problem. This is why we, and most importantly our children, need someone like Sanders and his types.
5
Another San Franciscan writes:
"My spouse and I would've loved more than 2 kids, but as middle class parents living in San Francisco, we just couldn't afford it, nor could our friends living anywhere in the Bay Area."
I and many other SF parents were in the same situation. We have three children rather than 2, but we considered carefully whether it was responsible to have a third child. We know many other SF couples who went through the same analysis, and almost all of them have 1-3 children (or none). If they'd lived elsewhere, maybe they could afford more children, but most couldn't assume they'd move. We know one couple with 4 children, and one with 5 children, but both families are very wealthy and it was apparent even back then that they'd probably remain that way. The rest of us recognized not only that kids are expensive but -- equally important -- that they will remain expensive for many years, and we couldn't predict what our economic situation would be down the road.
In short, we made the economic analyses that all parents should make, and we don't like being asked to support people who didn't, especially those who complain that even more should be done for them.
Changes in welfare policy inevitably hurt people in the short run, and most Americans are willing to make short-term adjustments to reduce that. But the long-term consequences of welfare reform are entirely predictable and should be considered carefully before someone decides to have a child.
"My spouse and I would've loved more than 2 kids, but as middle class parents living in San Francisco, we just couldn't afford it, nor could our friends living anywhere in the Bay Area."
I and many other SF parents were in the same situation. We have three children rather than 2, but we considered carefully whether it was responsible to have a third child. We know many other SF couples who went through the same analysis, and almost all of them have 1-3 children (or none). If they'd lived elsewhere, maybe they could afford more children, but most couldn't assume they'd move. We know one couple with 4 children, and one with 5 children, but both families are very wealthy and it was apparent even back then that they'd probably remain that way. The rest of us recognized not only that kids are expensive but -- equally important -- that they will remain expensive for many years, and we couldn't predict what our economic situation would be down the road.
In short, we made the economic analyses that all parents should make, and we don't like being asked to support people who didn't, especially those who complain that even more should be done for them.
Changes in welfare policy inevitably hurt people in the short run, and most Americans are willing to make short-term adjustments to reduce that. But the long-term consequences of welfare reform are entirely predictable and should be considered carefully before someone decides to have a child.
38
According to your analysis how much of your income goes to support people who have too many children?
2
heartless. it is the children for whom the assistance is provided. what analysis (economic or otherwise) did they do? perhaps you can invent an app for the uterus to help the zygotes make the same "rational" decision you did....
1
While the Clintons can't be entirely blamed for the ills of rapidly shrinking systems of public assistance, they do lack the vision to change it and fail to address the root cause and effect that exacerbates poverty in America. The 90's, under Bill Clinton, saw an expansion of neoliberalist economic policy that continues to favor corporations and the rich while providing no viable or sustainable future for the working class. Jobs are outsourced overseas, unions dismantled, trade agreements shift manufacturing elsewhere and cheap imports flood the market to be sold at Walmart (the largest recipient of government welfare). In fact Hillary served on the board of Walmart during that corporation's surge in growth that all but decimated the small businesses of Main Streets around the country. She and Bill were silent then as they are now - and that is why we need a more radical rethinking of the US economy and the politics that support the current systems of inequity. There's one candidate with that vision who recognizes the root causes of the current economic injustices and isn't afraid to speak truth to power to correct it. Maybe, just maybe, people will see through the haze and noise of the media and party propaganda and choose that vision, one that works for all of us.
6
I still remember this well, even though it’s been 40 years.
During the US’ “bicentennial” year (1976), Time Magazine devoted much of one issue to a large number of one-page essays written by Americans in vastly different economic situations (especially the well-to-do and the poor – as often happens, the vast middle was under-represented in those essay writers). Each writer had been asked to reflect on how America had changed, for better or for worse, during the writer’s lifetime. One writer said she’d been on welfare her entire life (since the early 1940s). She complained that it had become much harder to get benefits. Her mother had just had to show up at some government office to receive her check, but now they were demanding all sorts of papers showing that the woman was eligible for payments. She found that quite annoying.
Most of us aren’t bothered at all by this. While that woman was busy collecting her papers showing she was eligible to receive welfare payments, most other Americans were busy working to make the money that they’d pay in taxes that the government, in turn, would use to make those welfare payments. Those other Americans almost certainly felt it was appropriate to set conditions on those welfare payments, and appropriate to insist that recipients provide evidence that they satisfy those conditions.
Most Americans still feel that way.
During the US’ “bicentennial” year (1976), Time Magazine devoted much of one issue to a large number of one-page essays written by Americans in vastly different economic situations (especially the well-to-do and the poor – as often happens, the vast middle was under-represented in those essay writers). Each writer had been asked to reflect on how America had changed, for better or for worse, during the writer’s lifetime. One writer said she’d been on welfare her entire life (since the early 1940s). She complained that it had become much harder to get benefits. Her mother had just had to show up at some government office to receive her check, but now they were demanding all sorts of papers showing that the woman was eligible for payments. She found that quite annoying.
Most of us aren’t bothered at all by this. While that woman was busy collecting her papers showing she was eligible to receive welfare payments, most other Americans were busy working to make the money that they’d pay in taxes that the government, in turn, would use to make those welfare payments. Those other Americans almost certainly felt it was appropriate to set conditions on those welfare payments, and appropriate to insist that recipients provide evidence that they satisfy those conditions.
Most Americans still feel that way.
7
We should apply this principle to all government programs. Farmers should get a maximum of 12 months of subsidies during their lifetimes. Airlines should receive only 12 months of fuel subsidies. Churches and non-profits should receive only 12 months of tax-free existence. And hedge fund managers should have only one tax return eligible for their tax scams. Finally, members of Congress should only get one year of retirement benefits. Time for everyone to stand on their own two feet.
11
Our values are so screwed up. The vast majority of welfare in this country is paid to the big corporations and 1% in the form of tax breaks, subsidies, government contracts, legal loopholes, etc. Yet when we talk about providing just barely subsistence level assistance to citizens in need we become very judgmental.
I am sick of my tax dollars being spent on corporate welfare. They are the people who need to pick themselves up by their bootstraps and learn to live without assistance.
I am sick of my tax dollars being spent on corporate welfare. They are the people who need to pick themselves up by their bootstraps and learn to live without assistance.
9
Hundreds of other examples could be cited, but this one will do:
"if this law needs to be revised it can easily be except we have a frozen government. Thank you Mitch [McConnell] and Paul [Ryan]."
It is often said that the Republican-controlled Congress has shirked its responsibilities by "obstructing" various legislative proposals made by Obama. But many such proposals are not approved simply because most members of Congress don't agree with them. That's not "obstruction;" that's just the way it works in Congress or in any other legislative body. If a Democratic Senator were to vote against a proposal made by a Republican President, I doubt the Democratic Senator would consider it fair to say he is "obstructing" that President.
To cite a current example, if Democrats charge that Republicans are obstructing "immigration reform" by not loosening immigration laws, or by not granting the executive branch broad authority to ignore those laws, are the Republicans really blocking "immigration reform," or are they simply saying that the immigration laws don't need to be "reformed", that instead those laws simply need to be enforced as presently written?
An assessment of Congress' performance shouldn't be based on how many new laws it passes, but on whether the laws in effect – new or old – are good laws. In many areas, the approach should be: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
"if this law needs to be revised it can easily be except we have a frozen government. Thank you Mitch [McConnell] and Paul [Ryan]."
It is often said that the Republican-controlled Congress has shirked its responsibilities by "obstructing" various legislative proposals made by Obama. But many such proposals are not approved simply because most members of Congress don't agree with them. That's not "obstruction;" that's just the way it works in Congress or in any other legislative body. If a Democratic Senator were to vote against a proposal made by a Republican President, I doubt the Democratic Senator would consider it fair to say he is "obstructing" that President.
To cite a current example, if Democrats charge that Republicans are obstructing "immigration reform" by not loosening immigration laws, or by not granting the executive branch broad authority to ignore those laws, are the Republicans really blocking "immigration reform," or are they simply saying that the immigration laws don't need to be "reformed", that instead those laws simply need to be enforced as presently written?
An assessment of Congress' performance shouldn't be based on how many new laws it passes, but on whether the laws in effect – new or old – are good laws. In many areas, the approach should be: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
1
Where are the articles regarding the fathers of children that are forced to live in such poverty? Why are they not supporting their children? We as a society never ask the question so of course it doesn't get answered. Why are fathers not made responsible for their children?! Instead we have white men in our local and federal government trying to do all they can to control a woman's uterus. Hey Paul Ryan, you and your family survived on government subsidies. Ready to give it all back?!
6
Bernie Sanders is wrong in stating that people are helpless or remain vulnerable for ever! In this country, jobs are begging for people, albeit not the perfect job to fit your expectation. There is a vacuum for workers, thus this ongoing inflow of people here from everywhere. In short, Welfare should not be a profession and life-long vocation; it is at the most should be offered as a temporary help when needed while you are working to stand on your own. Rights have concomitant duties, both are two sides of the coin!
9
I would expect thoughtful welfare benefits would be accompanied by improving job prospects, living wages and health maintenance. The simple statement is: it is better to teach a person to fish than to just give a fish.
Why not revive the job corp of depression days? Our times are reminiscent of the robber baron days that preceded the Great Depression and surely we have infrastructure in dire need of repair.
Living wages is a no-brainer issue. Is it really welfare benefits for the poor or is it subsidies for miserly corporations e.g. Walmart, to pick a well known, but not sole example of unfair labor conditions.
As for health maintenance, I continue to be dismayed and amazed that I am signing disability documents for many of my obese patients. Their weights are so excessive that they are unable to stand/sit for jobs such as cashiering. Surely obesity is a disability that is preventable by teaching and facilitating healthy lifestyles.
So I find the focus of this article solely on welfare benefits to be narrow minded in the extreme.
Why not revive the job corp of depression days? Our times are reminiscent of the robber baron days that preceded the Great Depression and surely we have infrastructure in dire need of repair.
Living wages is a no-brainer issue. Is it really welfare benefits for the poor or is it subsidies for miserly corporations e.g. Walmart, to pick a well known, but not sole example of unfair labor conditions.
As for health maintenance, I continue to be dismayed and amazed that I am signing disability documents for many of my obese patients. Their weights are so excessive that they are unable to stand/sit for jobs such as cashiering. Surely obesity is a disability that is preventable by teaching and facilitating healthy lifestyles.
So I find the focus of this article solely on welfare benefits to be narrow minded in the extreme.
5
We need to give aid to any citizen who needs it--but it ought to be linked to jobs and/or meaningful education requirements. We need a national work corps as in the depression. You sign up for aid--at the same time you're assigned a local job, even if it's just mowing the lawn in front of the town hall. Or providing care in the town's free daycare center. Or growing vegetables in the free community garden, to provide meals at the senior center. Or you have to deliver meals as in meals on wheels.
If you're on welfare and have kids they also have an assignment--they have to learn to read at a designated level. Pass math classes. Low grades earn them the baseline aid. Higher grades rate higher aid. Their work earns more money for their family.
If your teenagers refuse contraception (i.e. Depo shots), yes, they still get baseline aid. If they accept contraception till age 21, they earn a bonus aid rate.
We could do so much with a carrot and more carrots approach, coupled with some firmness. And resentment of welfare would fade away in this country if every one was seen to be working, however small and humble the job.
And the country would be so much better off if these small but essential chores were being done. Just imagine if every lonely senior in a nursing home had an assigned helper to come talk to them for an hour daily--or hold the spoon to help them eat?
We need to link welfare to job requirements.
If you're on welfare and have kids they also have an assignment--they have to learn to read at a designated level. Pass math classes. Low grades earn them the baseline aid. Higher grades rate higher aid. Their work earns more money for their family.
If your teenagers refuse contraception (i.e. Depo shots), yes, they still get baseline aid. If they accept contraception till age 21, they earn a bonus aid rate.
We could do so much with a carrot and more carrots approach, coupled with some firmness. And resentment of welfare would fade away in this country if every one was seen to be working, however small and humble the job.
And the country would be so much better off if these small but essential chores were being done. Just imagine if every lonely senior in a nursing home had an assigned helper to come talk to them for an hour daily--or hold the spoon to help them eat?
We need to link welfare to job requirements.
9
I doubt that anyone disagrees with this, but...
"The decision to have a child one/a couple knows they cannot financially support is personal and not to be judged."
That decision is "personal and not to be judged" as long as the parent doesn't come knocking on society's door to ask for financial support. But when that parent does, society has a right to set limits on that financial support. In theory, society even has the right to say "no," but most of us agree that society should help out its needy members to some extent. Members of society may disagree over the proper extent, but there should be no disagreement that society has the right to draw the line somewhere.
"The decision to have a child one/a couple knows they cannot financially support is personal and not to be judged."
That decision is "personal and not to be judged" as long as the parent doesn't come knocking on society's door to ask for financial support. But when that parent does, society has a right to set limits on that financial support. In theory, society even has the right to say "no," but most of us agree that society should help out its needy members to some extent. Members of society may disagree over the proper extent, but there should be no disagreement that society has the right to draw the line somewhere.
13
With so much intellectual dishonesty on both sides of the political spectrum regarding this issue, it is decidedly unhelpful for the Times to continually engage in it also. The article reports that some who have lost cash benefits are selling their plasma and redeeming cans to replace, but it does not mention that they are probably also replacing the benefit in less arduous and more profitable ways. For instance, since federal welfare reform, Supplemental Security Income (worth $8,900/yr. per person) has been extended to disabled children, and many poor parents have replaced much of their lost cash benefit by having their kids dubiously declared disabled to access that not-insubstantial amount of cash. And the Times, as usual, does not mention the the many substantial subsidies available to the poor for food, housing, utilities, phone, medical and dental care, clothing, transportation, education, day care, etc. So the people supposedly living on less than $300 per month are probably receiving support from at least several of those programs, plus some unreported work and cash from the children's fathers. I support helping those who make major mistakes in life, or become seriously ill, and doing so in a way that preserves their dignity, but it needs to be made clear that we are not treating the poor as badly as most Times articles imply, and that the people featured in its articles are often not the helpless victims of a vindictive society they are portrayed as.
9
Though I am generally a fiscally 'conservative' liberal, welfare is one of those small things in which the government has a moral obligation to assist.
I see no difference between giving the elderly essentially free medical care and assisting young women (and/or men) with children.
I acidly note that the same people who are adamantly against welfare are largely those faux-Christian types who dress up and go to church on Sundays, are against contraception and abortions, and yet are happy to see young kids suffering the continued multi-generational plague that is poverty.
Shame on you, shame on us.
I see no difference between giving the elderly essentially free medical care and assisting young women (and/or men) with children.
I acidly note that the same people who are adamantly against welfare are largely those faux-Christian types who dress up and go to church on Sundays, are against contraception and abortions, and yet are happy to see young kids suffering the continued multi-generational plague that is poverty.
Shame on you, shame on us.
12
Older adults absolutely do not get almost free health care if they pay part A and Part B. Medicare premiums. There are also very large copays and percentage payment shortfalls in Medicare and to deal with those, supplemental coverage is necessary. People on Medicare with low incomes can get help government paying Medicare premiums but the standards are very tight. I work in a low-paying professional job with no benefits so pay health insurance premiums for my spouse and me. He just turned 65 and is paying part A and part B premiums. Our health insurance costs rose by a third. Wait until I turn 65-- more part A and B premiums and keeping some kind of supplemental insurance. What's more, providers taking Medicare assignment are decreasing in number and some specialties are vastly underrepresented--including psychiatry. Medicare also pays very little in rehab costs and no real long-term
care costs.
I do feel great empathy for young people trying to get along in today's society but I also feel empathy for older adults. Not everyone is of the stereotypical well-heeled baby boomer cohort. Please inform yourself.
care costs.
I do feel great empathy for young people trying to get along in today's society but I also feel empathy for older adults. Not everyone is of the stereotypical well-heeled baby boomer cohort. Please inform yourself.
5
People are against unlimited welfare with no time constraints. Nice rant though.
7
I don't understand the motivation for cutting welfare. We don't have enough jobs for adults who would like to work, nor will we ever. No entity is an employer of last resort in this country. So what is it that we want from these people asking for assistance? Not something they could give, apparently. The people who are marginal for employment--and so fall into the class of potential aid recipients--are just competing with each other for a pie that won't grow on their end. Even if some people who are really virtuous or industrious compete and get jobs at the low end of the economy, they're just taking jobs from other people in their relevant position who would have had them; the overall size of the low wage job market is not going to increase when more low wage people look for jobs (while those without jobs see their income eventually drop to zero because of cut benefits). So if the idea is that we shouldn't have unqualified welfare benefits because all of the people who would receive them should work, then that's not even an aim that could possibly be realized. Because of this, I don't see why we should begrudge even people who voluntarily remove themselves from the labor market and collect benefits, since, through no fault of their own, there's not some job out there for them except (maybe) one that would come at the expense of someone else in their representative position.
14
I've no problem helping true victims of misfortune. But when people keep pumping out kids like Pez dispensers, sympathy rapidly fades. They need to do their part, too.
6
Anyone of us could lose our private sector job at any time and have to live close to the margin. These are frightening economic times, especially for people 50+ who were laid off and will likely never work again earning anywhere near what they earned before 2008.
What speaks to me about the welfare dilemma is how young people on welfare continue to have children they can't afford. My spouse and I would've loved more than 2 kids, but as middle class parents living in San Francisco, we just couldn't afford it, nor could our friends living anywhere in the Bay Area. Why should those who chronically rely on welfare be able to keep bringing taxpayer supported kids into the world? This will only ensure that they remain in poverty, and it's also a slap in the face to the rest of us who support recipients of welfare and wanted more kids but couldn't afford them ourselves.
What speaks to me about the welfare dilemma is how young people on welfare continue to have children they can't afford. My spouse and I would've loved more than 2 kids, but as middle class parents living in San Francisco, we just couldn't afford it, nor could our friends living anywhere in the Bay Area. Why should those who chronically rely on welfare be able to keep bringing taxpayer supported kids into the world? This will only ensure that they remain in poverty, and it's also a slap in the face to the rest of us who support recipients of welfare and wanted more kids but couldn't afford them ourselves.
20
Absolutely correct, to say nothing of the fact that continuing to have these children will make the long term problem unsolvable. This economy can only support the higher skilled, higher educated worker. What good does it do to increase the size of the unskilled population? I am one of those 50+ people who will soon be laid off. I had only two children in my 30s here in NYC. With so many people living into their 80s and beyond, where is the money to support large groups of people going to come from, especially if large groups of people never paid into the Social Security system?
3
I agree with you on both points. How are we going to encourage people to avail themselves of the abundant forms of birth control available? Don't people see that out-of-wedlock births are a huge setback? Are that many young girls and women so hopeless that they can't imagine taking their futures into their own hands? If so, how tragic.
4
Just a note -- and I agree with you. But did you not file a tax return with personal exemptions for your children? Guess what? the government -- read me -- is paying in part for your kids. Oh yes, you got one for you wife too, and filed at a lower rate because you were married. Social engineering at its best.
1
Did the states and feds. provide meaningful retraining and job placement and childcare for these single mothers while they are eliminating their welfare? Did they increase their food stamps and the WIC program? Did they increase meaningful legal aid? Did they do anything but cut their cash welfare? This is the context that would help me understand if Clinton's program is working today. How many poor families are unemployed, untrained, and off welfare payments? Are the stereotyping of these people still going on, especially by those that have it made? I have been a welfare recipient and it really helped me make it through a couple of hard years as a single parent.
11
Why can't welfare moms team up to trade childcare? Like people in the real world do. Why must every solution be handed to them at the expense of people who control their reproduction instead of behaving like stray animals?
6
In Virginia, there is a mandatory requirement for recipients (or at least one parent in a 2 parent household) to attend "job training". This consists of classes that "teach" personal hygiene and grooming, along with resume and interviewing skills. Emphasis on hygiene and grooming. The entire "class" is condescending, treating the recipients like children, assuming they are all unwashed ignoramuses, unfamiliar with bathtubs or hairbrushes. Trump must have had a hand in that.
1
I wonder which real world you live in. What you recommend is ideal but the situations for many make it difficult to do this. Your opinion of us folks as stray animals says a lot about where you are coming from.
4
The Clinton legacy included some high points, but also this punitive welfare reform, deregulation of financial institutions, questionable (at best) trade deals, increased sentences for nonviolent crime and mass incarcerations. Then there were DOMA and DADT. The list goes on. I shake my head every time someone complains about how "horrible" Jane Sanders is. Why is no one examining the legacy of the other candidate's spouse?
9
I have come to feel that programs that encourage impoverish young women to have children out of wedlock brings suffering for everyone involved and these programs should end. (If a young woman stays in school, build a career, and bring a child into the world on her own then, that is fine.)
Abortion needs to be legal. Birth control needs to be widely available.
The fact that the money runs out in one or two years needs to be widely publicised, and stuck too.
Kids need a really good upbringing with parents who have time, energy and resources in a home without drama. In the short term that means spending massively on foster care programs. Take the kids out of drama-filled home, let them live with stable family and have fun like kids should, and the constant knot of worry goes away. The worst has happened to you (taken from mom), but look around, you have nice home, nice foster family, fun. Kid stops being tortured every day by fear and worry and can be a kid again. Mom can visit, and hopefully, returns to school.
Abortion needs to be legal. Birth control needs to be widely available.
The fact that the money runs out in one or two years needs to be widely publicised, and stuck too.
Kids need a really good upbringing with parents who have time, energy and resources in a home without drama. In the short term that means spending massively on foster care programs. Take the kids out of drama-filled home, let them live with stable family and have fun like kids should, and the constant knot of worry goes away. The worst has happened to you (taken from mom), but look around, you have nice home, nice foster family, fun. Kid stops being tortured every day by fear and worry and can be a kid again. Mom can visit, and hopefully, returns to school.
11
And when we legalize eugenics, we can create the perfect human.
1
In response to Karen from NJ:
You must have never been placed with a foster family.
I read the research about the outcomes of foster placements. Most children end up in families with as much dysfunction, if not more, than their biological one. The rates of childhood abuse, including childhood sexual abuse, are astronomically high. And most children end up being moved around among several placements. I have read first-hand accounts from foster youth themselves...quite an education to read their stories,
And then they age out of the system at 18 (in most states; some states, 21), and over 25% of them end up homeless because they didn't get the transitional support that middle and upper class youth take for granted--help paying for college, help with major expenses, etc.
If you think being placed in foster care somehow rescues children you are sadly mistaken. There are healthy foster families, but they are in the minority, unfortunately.
Making systemic changes that eradicate intergenerational poverty (and trauma) is the only way to change how children are raised, and how many resources (not just financial, but also emotional and mental) parents have to nurture their children.
You must have never been placed with a foster family.
I read the research about the outcomes of foster placements. Most children end up in families with as much dysfunction, if not more, than their biological one. The rates of childhood abuse, including childhood sexual abuse, are astronomically high. And most children end up being moved around among several placements. I have read first-hand accounts from foster youth themselves...quite an education to read their stories,
And then they age out of the system at 18 (in most states; some states, 21), and over 25% of them end up homeless because they didn't get the transitional support that middle and upper class youth take for granted--help paying for college, help with major expenses, etc.
If you think being placed in foster care somehow rescues children you are sadly mistaken. There are healthy foster families, but they are in the minority, unfortunately.
Making systemic changes that eradicate intergenerational poverty (and trauma) is the only way to change how children are raised, and how many resources (not just financial, but also emotional and mental) parents have to nurture their children.
5
Leah, that's why we need to spend massively on foster care.
Living in a normal environment is great for kids. Spend massively on foster care. It doesn't have to be bad, not if you spend for a normal, nice home. Kids need to be raised in a nice safe home without drama. That's more important than keeping families together. Ask anyone raised in a terrible home environment, and they will tell you. It damages you for life.
Living in a normal environment is great for kids. Spend massively on foster care. It doesn't have to be bad, not if you spend for a normal, nice home. Kids need to be raised in a nice safe home without drama. That's more important than keeping families together. Ask anyone raised in a terrible home environment, and they will tell you. It damages you for life.
I do not think there should be time limits for welfare, however the people receiveing welfare need to be pushed to find employment. If they do not have a HS diploma they should be required to get one as part of their conditions for receiving welfare. Also, all government aid programs should have a HS diploma requirement.
5
Why? How would imposing more requirements on poor people possibly improve their lot? Many recipients left school to go to work so they and their family didn't starve on the street. Having a diploma (or GED) is not a magic bullet to employment. Ask all the advanced degree holders looking for work, many collecting benefits. The only "doors" having a diploma opens are the doors to college. Plenty of jobs with no HS requirement.
1
For years politicians have decreased taxes to the point where the money just isn't there any more. So who better to blame than welfare recipients? Instead of focusing on guns, abortion, LGBT and all the other incendiary issues they need to focus on job creation. What a new concept, eh?
As an aside...if that 4 year old colored those pictures in the background all by himself he has a tremendous talent. If mom helped, she is a terrific mom to be so involved in her child. Look at that beaming little face and tell me it's a bad thing that mom was home with him for most of his formative years.
As an aside...if that 4 year old colored those pictures in the background all by himself he has a tremendous talent. If mom helped, she is a terrific mom to be so involved in her child. Look at that beaming little face and tell me it's a bad thing that mom was home with him for most of his formative years.
10
I don't know about you, but my taxes have not gone down since the Reagan tax cut of the early 1980's. Federal, state and local taxes now take 40% of my income. Do you really think that $40 out of every $100 of income is not sufficient taxation? Where does personal responsibility come into play for those on welfare? Many are lifetime recipients, and it is a fact that many women have children out of wedlock in order to perpetuate their welfare status.
7
I have always felt any country with Agricultural subsidies ( to keep land fallow) should give away food to the population. It is nothing new to keep food stores for tough times. These days the inability of present day wages to support a decent standard of living means Food Stamps should be expanded, not restricted. Of course they could always come to your neighborhood and rifle your garbage cans for food....
10
National City, California was...possibly still is ranked as one of the "poorest" cities in California. When I started teaching here 25 years ago, parents walked to our community meetings and took home leftovers from our family dinner nights. We provided the plates and foil because we knew the need was so great. Welfare and food stamps were the norm. Parents embraced the school uniform policy partially because it was much cheaper to buy school clothes.
This all changed thanks to the welfare reforms in California. We could see its affects immediately. Parents started looking for and finding work. Our GPA's soared. Our gang problems disappeared. Kids showed up to school with braces on their teeth. We began hearing stories about family vacations. And parents started driving to school meetings in new cars thereby creating huge traffic jams that we have yet to resolve in our narrow-street neighborhoods.
Yes, we still have some parents who piece things together during hard times. They live with family members, use public transportation, enroll in occupational programs, and so on. I'm not sure why the liberal elements of my Democratic Party think this is a bad thing. Is this a perfect system? No, but it has created an expectation that our students will graduate from high school either ready for work or college enrollment.
It's been a good 20 years for National City. Let's stay the course.
This all changed thanks to the welfare reforms in California. We could see its affects immediately. Parents started looking for and finding work. Our GPA's soared. Our gang problems disappeared. Kids showed up to school with braces on their teeth. We began hearing stories about family vacations. And parents started driving to school meetings in new cars thereby creating huge traffic jams that we have yet to resolve in our narrow-street neighborhoods.
Yes, we still have some parents who piece things together during hard times. They live with family members, use public transportation, enroll in occupational programs, and so on. I'm not sure why the liberal elements of my Democratic Party think this is a bad thing. Is this a perfect system? No, but it has created an expectation that our students will graduate from high school either ready for work or college enrollment.
It's been a good 20 years for National City. Let's stay the course.
10
Of course, what actually happened was that the state and the Feds poured in aid, and that the economy was stronger back when Clinton was President.
http://nationalcityca.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=11385
http://nationalcityca.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=11385
2
After reading the book Political Animals I found that as the welfare rolls decreased their was a corresponding increase in those individuals that applied and were awarded social security disability. The cost just came out of a different pot. Made the politicians look good. It is not easy securing a disability award but when an individual has no other option because of a disability rather than suffer the scorn of those that hate welfare they then apply for disability. Maybe if every citizen had to spend a week with a person on welfare they might understand in most cases it is the children that suffer. Oh well out of sight out of mind.
10
The increase in Social Security disability applications is because people who would rather work with a disability are not finding work. Some (those with dependent children, since they are the only ones eligible for "welfare") go on welfare to help out while looking for jobs. Since the jobs are not there, and welfare benefits run out, they apply for SS.
1
I read about "Bill Clinton's" welfare law, but all the changes that reduced this woman and her child's welfare payment kept saying "the state of Arizona." Is/was Bill Clinton ever in charge of Arizona?
This is a perfect example of how Democracts, particularly progressives, don't see the big picture. They expect Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Bernie/Hillary to somehow fix this problem. Yet in state after state (not just in the south), Repbulicans have gotten their voters motivated to win governorships and state houses. Then changes like this happen.
It's up to the good people of Arizona (and many other states) to address this problem. And it's up to Democrats to stop focusing only on elections every four years -- 2018 is just as important as 2016 for programs like these, and many others.
This is a perfect example of how Democracts, particularly progressives, don't see the big picture. They expect Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Bernie/Hillary to somehow fix this problem. Yet in state after state (not just in the south), Repbulicans have gotten their voters motivated to win governorships and state houses. Then changes like this happen.
It's up to the good people of Arizona (and many other states) to address this problem. And it's up to Democrats to stop focusing only on elections every four years -- 2018 is just as important as 2016 for programs like these, and many others.
13
I can't speak for every state, but I know of a few states that are under complete Republican control because they "motivated" their voters by using the backing of in- and out-of-state billionaire donors to outspend opponents by multiples. In my state, for example, Scott Walker has outspent his opponents by at least 3 to 1, making it unfairly easy for him to control message, even with outright lies. Through gerrymandering and continued unlimited out of state donations, Republicans continue to control all 3 branches of government.
4
I disagree entirely with this, and I think most Americans do:
"This example should serve as apt warning for anyone considering the ultimate consequences of giving block grants to states for social welfare spending. You don't want to be under the Arizona or Texas version of Medicare."
Some states are more pro-welfare than others. If you live in a state that's not pro-welfare and don't like that, move to a pro-welfare state. I have no doubt that's already happening. Eventually, pro-welfare states will notice that their welfare rolls have become disproportionately higher than the welfare rolls of other states. There are several possible responses to that, of course. One is to press for larger taxpayer subsidies of welfare programs -- good luck with that effort. Another is to become a bit less pro-welfare -- that approach is likely to fare better.
"This example should serve as apt warning for anyone considering the ultimate consequences of giving block grants to states for social welfare spending. You don't want to be under the Arizona or Texas version of Medicare."
Some states are more pro-welfare than others. If you live in a state that's not pro-welfare and don't like that, move to a pro-welfare state. I have no doubt that's already happening. Eventually, pro-welfare states will notice that their welfare rolls have become disproportionately higher than the welfare rolls of other states. There are several possible responses to that, of course. One is to press for larger taxpayer subsidies of welfare programs -- good luck with that effort. Another is to become a bit less pro-welfare -- that approach is likely to fare better.
5
Wait, so your argument is: the fact that some states can free ride on the welfare system shows that funding conditions that allow this very free-riding are justified?
3
To Pierce Randall,
"Free ride?" If a state doesn't spend all of a "block grant" on welfare payments, the state isn't free simply to toss the left-overs into some general state fund -- to use, for example, on increased salaries for the governor. The state may simply use the left-over "block grant" money for other limited purposes prescribed in the law under which that "block grant" was made.
You may feel that a state should be required to pick the same permitted purpose that you would pick -- higher welfare payments. But the state may pick some other purpose permitted by the law. If Congress had intended that "block grants" be used to fund welfare payments and nothing else, Congress could have written that into the "block grant" law. But Congress didn't.
Some states believe "block grant" money should be used principally or entirely for welfare payments. Other states don't. Simple as that.
"Free ride?" If a state doesn't spend all of a "block grant" on welfare payments, the state isn't free simply to toss the left-overs into some general state fund -- to use, for example, on increased salaries for the governor. The state may simply use the left-over "block grant" money for other limited purposes prescribed in the law under which that "block grant" was made.
You may feel that a state should be required to pick the same permitted purpose that you would pick -- higher welfare payments. But the state may pick some other purpose permitted by the law. If Congress had intended that "block grants" be used to fund welfare payments and nothing else, Congress could have written that into the "block grant" law. But Congress didn't.
Some states believe "block grant" money should be used principally or entirely for welfare payments. Other states don't. Simple as that.
1
Nowhere in the article does it extoll the virue of limited welfare and the incentive to work, both for the adults reveiving unearned benefits and as an example for the children in welfare homes. Welfare should be temporary and it should not be easy to obtain, stop the condescending bigotry regarding the poor!
13
"“I spoke out against so-called welfare reform because I thought it was scapegoating people who were helpless," said Bernie Sanders in February.
How patronizing. The "people" he referred to aren't helpless. Leaving aside disabled persons, the "people" are adults who can make decisions and should be in charge of their own lives.
Quotes like these would really push me away from voting for Sanders if he were nominated as the Democratic presidential candidate. Fortunately, that's very unlikely.
How patronizing. The "people" he referred to aren't helpless. Leaving aside disabled persons, the "people" are adults who can make decisions and should be in charge of their own lives.
Quotes like these would really push me away from voting for Sanders if he were nominated as the Democratic presidential candidate. Fortunately, that's very unlikely.
19
I'm saddened the article did not discuss the increase in social security benefits that have grown since "the end of welfare as we know it". It's not an insignificant number of people. The amount of children now labeled "disabled" is staggering. The amount of money paid out for social security is much greater than that of "welfare", and it tends to be a life-long commitment for recipients.
I work with juveniles who are already convinced they'll never have to work as a result of their "disability" and it can be difficult to encourage them otherwise. It's incredibly sad to know that most of them will never discover their true potential because they've already been taught they are disabled, when truly they are nothing more than disadvantaged.
I work with juveniles who are already convinced they'll never have to work as a result of their "disability" and it can be difficult to encourage them otherwise. It's incredibly sad to know that most of them will never discover their true potential because they've already been taught they are disabled, when truly they are nothing more than disadvantaged.
24
The decision to have a child one/a couple knows they cannot financially support is personal and not to be judged.
The Republican Party platform is Pro-Life and wants shutter abortion clinics yet also supports limiting funding for programs such as TANF not to take into account the U.S. population has grown 58m over the last 20-years; technological advancements and inflation are rocketing along yet the most vulnerable - our next generation are being harmed most.
What kind of example is that setting of fiscal responsibility?
The Republican Party platform is Pro-Life and wants shutter abortion clinics yet also supports limiting funding for programs such as TANF not to take into account the U.S. population has grown 58m over the last 20-years; technological advancements and inflation are rocketing along yet the most vulnerable - our next generation are being harmed most.
What kind of example is that setting of fiscal responsibility?
5
We've had this debate before, so the same demonization begins. No one hates children, but the era of perpetual welfare ended. Senator Sanders could not bring it back, even with a Democratic House and Senate.
I moved in with a relative to go back to school. Why is that somehow shameful? I think the most outrageous aspect of the whole system were the numbers of young, single mothers who planned on the government for support and if that puts more responsibility on them, it was good for the kids too.
Why would any reader of the NYT want to go backward? If Senator Sanders were indeed a socialist, he would offer a solution, as Ghandi did, to put the means of production back in the possession of workers. Otherwise, he insults true socialists by trying to play by capitalist rules.
I moved in with a relative to go back to school. Why is that somehow shameful? I think the most outrageous aspect of the whole system were the numbers of young, single mothers who planned on the government for support and if that puts more responsibility on them, it was good for the kids too.
Why would any reader of the NYT want to go backward? If Senator Sanders were indeed a socialist, he would offer a solution, as Ghandi did, to put the means of production back in the possession of workers. Otherwise, he insults true socialists by trying to play by capitalist rules.
10
"Bill Clinton's Welfare Law?" Quite the contrary.
Those of us who were paying attention at the time remember quite well that the welfare-reform law was passed over the strong objections of Bill Clinton, who vowed to veto it until his political advisers persuaded him that a veto would be politically unwise. Only when the law later appeared to have been a success (which this article argues was short-lived) did Bill Clinton seek to claim it as his own.
Ironically, this article argues that references to "Bill Clinton's Welfare Law" now leave Hillary vulnerable to attacks from the left. When the law was passed, Bill Clinton was vulnerable to attacks from the right for opposing it. Indeed, it was the fear of just such attacks that induced Bill Clinton to sign in the first place.
Those of us who were paying attention at the time remember quite well that the welfare-reform law was passed over the strong objections of Bill Clinton, who vowed to veto it until his political advisers persuaded him that a veto would be politically unwise. Only when the law later appeared to have been a success (which this article argues was short-lived) did Bill Clinton seek to claim it as his own.
Ironically, this article argues that references to "Bill Clinton's Welfare Law" now leave Hillary vulnerable to attacks from the left. When the law was passed, Bill Clinton was vulnerable to attacks from the right for opposing it. Indeed, it was the fear of just such attacks that induced Bill Clinton to sign in the first place.
3
True, individual choice feeds welfare dysfunction. Yet.
My sister and I were both raised by Midwestern professionals possessing compassion, community loyalty, and powerful work ethics. I graduated high school, served my country for 31 years, and finished both college and grad school. My sister quit high school in 1979, kept bad company, and flew against common sense and family succor.
She moved to Arizona, married a raging alcoholic and raised two sons on their combined SSI benefits plus whatever she wheedled from the state and her (ex) husband. Arizona's best shot at medical help hooked her on opiates for fibromyalgia and mental health problems. My nephews were "fixed" with cocktails of anti-psychotic drugs that neither needed half as much as a stable foundation and consistent services.
She is an American failure story produced by bad choices. Yet.
Her every attempt to make better choices is and has been thwarted by the state's Dickensian dearth of efficient and meaningful legal, financial, medical, child-service, and psychiatric services. My sister spins in a downward eddy from which she cannot extricate herself long enough to do anything but make it through today.
Until the clowns in Congress (along with the sideshow that is the Arizona legislature) provide reliable systems upon which poor people might rebuild shattered lives, no amount of money granted or withheld will change the chaotic equations of choice, chance, and destination that equate to hopeless outcomes.
My sister and I were both raised by Midwestern professionals possessing compassion, community loyalty, and powerful work ethics. I graduated high school, served my country for 31 years, and finished both college and grad school. My sister quit high school in 1979, kept bad company, and flew against common sense and family succor.
She moved to Arizona, married a raging alcoholic and raised two sons on their combined SSI benefits plus whatever she wheedled from the state and her (ex) husband. Arizona's best shot at medical help hooked her on opiates for fibromyalgia and mental health problems. My nephews were "fixed" with cocktails of anti-psychotic drugs that neither needed half as much as a stable foundation and consistent services.
She is an American failure story produced by bad choices. Yet.
Her every attempt to make better choices is and has been thwarted by the state's Dickensian dearth of efficient and meaningful legal, financial, medical, child-service, and psychiatric services. My sister spins in a downward eddy from which she cannot extricate herself long enough to do anything but make it through today.
Until the clowns in Congress (along with the sideshow that is the Arizona legislature) provide reliable systems upon which poor people might rebuild shattered lives, no amount of money granted or withheld will change the chaotic equations of choice, chance, and destination that equate to hopeless outcomes.
18
If you've ever touched any part of our social well-fare system, you'd already know the thing is in tatters. The level of effort required to get token amounts is absurd and never addresses the root causes underlying need. A single mother, a downsized engineer, an unemployed college grad, and a heroine addict are all essentially treated the same by service agencies. A fifteen minute webinar on application writing really isn't going to help much.
Here's the multifaceted approach to impoverishment:
1) Prevent people from receiving assistance.
2) Kick people off already receiving assistance.
3) Make the whole process such a pain that nobody wants assistance.
4) Use the above to reduce the budget so there is no assistance to give.
I'm sure there are some cases of abuse but most people are just desperate and need help. Instead, we make getting help a poorly paid seasonal job.
Here's the multifaceted approach to impoverishment:
1) Prevent people from receiving assistance.
2) Kick people off already receiving assistance.
3) Make the whole process such a pain that nobody wants assistance.
4) Use the above to reduce the budget so there is no assistance to give.
I'm sure there are some cases of abuse but most people are just desperate and need help. Instead, we make getting help a poorly paid seasonal job.
17
In response to NYT articles over the TPP trade agreement, several commenters made the point that several European countries simply accept that 20% of the country’s people will be permanently unemployable, and thus must be supported by the remaining 80%. For better or worse, that’s not acceptable here.
Most Americans may feel that “12 months per lifetime” is too short a period for welfare eligibility. (Frankly, I do.) But most of us feel SOME “lifetime” limit is appropriate, and that some shorter “per incident” limit also is appropriate (just as an example: 9 months’ max at any time, with a 5-year lifetime limit). Without such time limits, it’s inevitable that we’ll have what we did have before the welfare-reform law passed: a large number of people who expect to, and do, live permanently on taxpayer support. That may be the system in much of Europe, and perhaps it will inevitably be the system here. But for now, that’s not the way it is here, and I think most Americans don’t want that to change. We’re willing to quibble about the length of time limits, but not over whether there should be time limits.
Most Americans may feel that “12 months per lifetime” is too short a period for welfare eligibility. (Frankly, I do.) But most of us feel SOME “lifetime” limit is appropriate, and that some shorter “per incident” limit also is appropriate (just as an example: 9 months’ max at any time, with a 5-year lifetime limit). Without such time limits, it’s inevitable that we’ll have what we did have before the welfare-reform law passed: a large number of people who expect to, and do, live permanently on taxpayer support. That may be the system in much of Europe, and perhaps it will inevitably be the system here. But for now, that’s not the way it is here, and I think most Americans don’t want that to change. We’re willing to quibble about the length of time limits, but not over whether there should be time limits.
10
Ah Bill how do I love thee now that Hillary is proposing to outsource the presidency to Bill, let us count the ways. Besides welfare "reform" we have:deregulation, financial bubbles and balanced budgets (we have learned by now the folly of austerity and the non urgency of balanced budgets haven't we?) and of course the 1994 crime bill
We need to shut the door on the Clinton legacy once and for all..
We need to shut the door on the Clinton legacy once and for all..
8
1. Swiftboat the (Bill) Clinton presidency.
2. Swiftboat Hillary's record of advocacy for women and children
3. Swiftboat the Clintons' commitment to racial justice
Republicans were able to convince their voters that war hero Kerry was an unpatriotic coward. They must figure we'll fall for anything.
2. Swiftboat Hillary's record of advocacy for women and children
3. Swiftboat the Clintons' commitment to racial justice
Republicans were able to convince their voters that war hero Kerry was an unpatriotic coward. They must figure we'll fall for anything.
1
Before I watched Hillary's campaign, I had never heard someone denounce deregulation and hail the economic achievements of Bill Clinton in the same speech. That kind of mental combination, I’ve always assumed, puts you in danger of spontaneous combustion or something. After all, Bill Clinton is America’s all-time champion deregulator. He deregulated banks. He deregulated telecoms. He appointed arch deregulators Robert Rubin and Larry Summers to high office, and he re-upped Ronald Reagan’s pet Fed chairman, Alan Greenspan. He took some time out to dynamite the federal welfare system, then he came back and deregulated banks some more. And derivative securities, too.
1
Yes, we all know that times were good in the last few years of Bill Clinton’s presidency. But unless 90s nostalgia has completely paralyzed your brain, we also know that this was due in large part to a series of financial bubbles. It is true that a different person was in the White House when the last of those bubbles exploded, but even a child understands that doesn’t get Bill Clinton entirely off the hook for it.
1
Make welfare a minimum wage job. You can keep collecting but you have to work. There are always leaves to be raked, trash to pick up. Then help people train for better jobs.
39
What we think of as "welfare benefits" should be part of the floor guaranteed to all citizens. Basic (safe) housing and enough food to maintain a baseline of health. However, to claim those benefits, people who are capable should either have to be enrolled in a strict education/training regimen that will equip them to survive without assistance, or work a set number of hours per week in a public service corps; helping to rebuild/repair infrastructure, clean/paint/plant & otherwise revitalize community blight, produce low cost goods, etc...
2
And what happens to the children? We have very limited child care resources available for low income people. Preschool costs more than many women make in a month. If you want welfare recipients to work, you're going to need to pay for a free universal childcare and preschool.
2
in NYC, garbage collectors can make 100k/yr. It's a semi-coveted job. Many service jobs are like that, I think. There's a whole group of workers who do not want to see
1) their jobs given to other people
2) competition from people on a welfare wage
Also, once you start dictating whom private companies hire and at what wages, you have Socialism, right?
1) their jobs given to other people
2) competition from people on a welfare wage
Also, once you start dictating whom private companies hire and at what wages, you have Socialism, right?
This is a serious matter.
Lack of funding is a threat to Barack Obama's signature accomplishment as President, the expansion of welfare and entitlement freebies to able bodied Americans who could be working, and Obama's favorite people--undocumented illegals who enter the USA because they can, and take whatever the Obama WH is willing to steal from our pockets to give them.
Lack of funding is a threat to Barack Obama's signature accomplishment as President, the expansion of welfare and entitlement freebies to able bodied Americans who could be working, and Obama's favorite people--undocumented illegals who enter the USA because they can, and take whatever the Obama WH is willing to steal from our pockets to give them.
12
It's amazing to watch a "barrister," read an article that details the sharp drops in welfare rolls and the sharp chops in benefits, then wail about fantasized increases in welfare rolls and in benefits.
3
Undocumented immigrants are his favorite people? Then why did he deport more of them than any other president?
3
Victor:
That's quite funny. Obama hasn't deported more illegal immigrants. In fact, deportations have dropped dramatically under him. He just counts other things as "deportations" and hopes people like yourself will repeat the narrative.
With Obama, it's all about the narrative. You've bought this one hook, line and sinker.
That's quite funny. Obama hasn't deported more illegal immigrants. In fact, deportations have dropped dramatically under him. He just counts other things as "deportations" and hopes people like yourself will repeat the narrative.
With Obama, it's all about the narrative. You've bought this one hook, line and sinker.
2
If you have checked out groceries behind women using food stamps, it is sometimes hard not to be disapproving and resentful. On the other hand, people who make it hard for poor women to get contraception and abortion deserve as much blame and shame as we can heap on them.
Women should not have babies until they themselves can financially support those babies. But our society should be making it EASY for women to get contraceptives and abortions, not difficult or impossible. If you disapprove of abortion, too bad; it's not your life.
Women should not have babies until they themselves can financially support those babies. But our society should be making it EASY for women to get contraceptives and abortions, not difficult or impossible. If you disapprove of abortion, too bad; it's not your life.
33
It is easy to get contraception. Abortions are being increasingly limited but contraception, not so much so. Failure at consistent and correct use of contraception is the elephant in the room. The article does say that welfare reform was accompanied by a decrease in the teen birth rate. But, the fact is that there are children, like the two mentioned in this article, present in the society in the here and now. These kids did not ask to be born. This is a multifaceted issue with multifaceted solutions. Blaming lack of contraception may be a red herring. But penalizing kids is not the way to go.
1
There are many young women who want to get pregnant. They know that's how to open a large door to free taxpayer subsidized benefits start. Some feel that's how they will keep the man and gave one to call "my baby daddy".
1 child equals a large earned income tax credit (even from working part time), food stamps, Medicaid (not Medicare which many confuse medicaid with), WIC, cash assistance, rent assistance, heat assistance, child care assistance, etc. Many choose to never leave the free programs even here in my area, there are many jobs. Free contraception means nothing to this type of person.
People move here from all over the country yet many of the factory jobs remain unfilled. Temp agencies are everywhere.
Temp jobs are not always the best job but pay more than fast food. I worked as a temp forklift driver for a year and a half to pay bills or stacked paper plates at the Dixie cup factory, do not see why others can't do this work??
I have met people from Chicago, Arizona, Michigan, Alabama, Iowa, New York, Louisiana, Washington, Central America, Mexico, Bosnia, etc in this one factory because there are jobs here in this area. I am a 50 minute drive from Nashville in Bowling Green Kentucky. Factories are popping up in this and surrounding counties. People need to move to the jobs sometimes, not wait forever for jobs to come to them.
1 child equals a large earned income tax credit (even from working part time), food stamps, Medicaid (not Medicare which many confuse medicaid with), WIC, cash assistance, rent assistance, heat assistance, child care assistance, etc. Many choose to never leave the free programs even here in my area, there are many jobs. Free contraception means nothing to this type of person.
People move here from all over the country yet many of the factory jobs remain unfilled. Temp agencies are everywhere.
Temp jobs are not always the best job but pay more than fast food. I worked as a temp forklift driver for a year and a half to pay bills or stacked paper plates at the Dixie cup factory, do not see why others can't do this work??
I have met people from Chicago, Arizona, Michigan, Alabama, Iowa, New York, Louisiana, Washington, Central America, Mexico, Bosnia, etc in this one factory because there are jobs here in this area. I am a 50 minute drive from Nashville in Bowling Green Kentucky. Factories are popping up in this and surrounding counties. People need to move to the jobs sometimes, not wait forever for jobs to come to them.
Everyone's asking: where are the dads? None of them earn very much money. Most people start out with good intentions and try to stick together, but people working in service jobs are lucky if they can afford a room in an apartment with a bunch of roommates, let alone an entire apartment or home, along with the expenses of raising children. Some move out of states where there are no jobs in order to find a job at all. Some men resent paying their exes to raise their kids and do everything they can to avoid taking responsibility. Some men wind up in jail because they've reneged on their child support, and when they get out of jail, not only have they lost income, but are even more unemployable for having served time. This whole system is set up to make people CRAZY. You cannot lead a stable life when your employer has no sense of obligation to you, when you're one corporate merger away from the unemployment line, when there is no job stability and you have to look for a new job every other year. It doesn't matter how much education you have at some point, if there are so few jobs that pay living wages. I'm not going to blame immigrants, though, because it's not their fault that they are so desperate to work that they'll do anything. I do blame employers for taking jobs out of the country so that they can pay lower wages in other countries, and line their own pockets with the savings, while they enjoy the benefits of American corporate welfare.
13
Here in BG, KY there should not be anyone without a child receiving govt cash or food stamps.
You can gave a job today at any of the numerous temp agencies, most paying $10 an hour, which is above min wage, otherwise you really don't want to work but want other workers to support your laziness.
At the factory I work at making various metal auto parts and frames, positions are always open. On third shift we are short 9 forklift drivers, which pays 16.58 an hour, not bad money for Kentucky, especially since no physical labor is involved.
Where are the workers?
The govt brags about the low unemployment rate and how great the economy is, why are we paying people to sit home, feed them, and pay for their health care? In this great economy shouldn't they get able to get some type of job (like the many open here) and stop living off the taxpayers?
You can gave a job today at any of the numerous temp agencies, most paying $10 an hour, which is above min wage, otherwise you really don't want to work but want other workers to support your laziness.
At the factory I work at making various metal auto parts and frames, positions are always open. On third shift we are short 9 forklift drivers, which pays 16.58 an hour, not bad money for Kentucky, especially since no physical labor is involved.
Where are the workers?
The govt brags about the low unemployment rate and how great the economy is, why are we paying people to sit home, feed them, and pay for their health care? In this great economy shouldn't they get able to get some type of job (like the many open here) and stop living off the taxpayers?
18
I tried the temp scene shortly after leaving college. It's nasty and nearly impossible to get any kind of real work with them too.
2
If Anna Robinson's call center job was not automated she won't need cash assistance. Also Bill Clinton signed the NAFTA law that cost a lot of jobs to people who would have not needed cash assistance. It's one thing to tell people to get a job but it's another thing when jobs are being shipped over seas, automated or just downsized.
Just late last year the supermarket I mostly shopped at, Pathmark, declared bankruptcy, then sold out their stores to Stop&Shop. Now the new supermarket put in several automated machines so customers can scan their groceries and pay. They left just a few cashier lanes open. Last week I heard one of the cashiers saying that the new company has cut back on their hours and some cashiers now have to work three different jobs. So people working for a few hours in one place will have zero benefits except maybe a discount on their groceries.
Just late last year the supermarket I mostly shopped at, Pathmark, declared bankruptcy, then sold out their stores to Stop&Shop. Now the new supermarket put in several automated machines so customers can scan their groceries and pay. They left just a few cashier lanes open. Last week I heard one of the cashiers saying that the new company has cut back on their hours and some cashiers now have to work three different jobs. So people working for a few hours in one place will have zero benefits except maybe a discount on their groceries.
15
Tell the delusional hypnotized Christian following the second coming will not be here in America. One Roman Empire was enough.
6
Blacks love Bill Clinton and the love Barack Obama and now Hillary Clinton is getting that same love, however what have we gotten and what are we getting in return?
We spent the last 7 plus years acting as if racism did not exist until the last few months and now blacks are bragging that it a miracle what Obama got done? This is why black people are not taken seriously by whites because we make these excuses!
Did not after the 2010 Mid-Term and the GOP took over the House of Rep and turn down everything the President touch making him not be able to do anything, but that did not stop him for running in 2012 knowing that Democrats would retake the House.
So we were going to fight through the 2nd term hoping that in 2014 Mid-Term would do what after 2010 & 2012. Yes there was enough whites to vote with blacks & Hispanics to elect a minority from only 13% of the population, but the 60% of whites of the 72% majority populations is mad and is not willing to work with the other side because it looks like they are losing their majority.
Something you got to punt when playing football and it that means that we got to allow the majority to be in the head position in order to help the larger black population. Blacks making $5,000 less than 2008 in family income, does not help white but hurt us. When 2 million blacks have lost homes and half of the rest of 40% blacks home ownership are underwater and they have not been able to refinance as the 72% white home ownership to 4% interest
We spent the last 7 plus years acting as if racism did not exist until the last few months and now blacks are bragging that it a miracle what Obama got done? This is why black people are not taken seriously by whites because we make these excuses!
Did not after the 2010 Mid-Term and the GOP took over the House of Rep and turn down everything the President touch making him not be able to do anything, but that did not stop him for running in 2012 knowing that Democrats would retake the House.
So we were going to fight through the 2nd term hoping that in 2014 Mid-Term would do what after 2010 & 2012. Yes there was enough whites to vote with blacks & Hispanics to elect a minority from only 13% of the population, but the 60% of whites of the 72% majority populations is mad and is not willing to work with the other side because it looks like they are losing their majority.
Something you got to punt when playing football and it that means that we got to allow the majority to be in the head position in order to help the larger black population. Blacks making $5,000 less than 2008 in family income, does not help white but hurt us. When 2 million blacks have lost homes and half of the rest of 40% blacks home ownership are underwater and they have not been able to refinance as the 72% white home ownership to 4% interest
3
As only Nixon could go to China, only Clinton could destroy the social welfare net.
7
[[President Clinton signed the welfare law in 1996 and said it would replace “a never-ending cycle of welfare” with “‘the dignity, the power and the ethic of work.”]]
The truth of the matter is that we all make a quick mental calculation about whether or not someone "deserves" their welfare payment and whether or not they have been responsible in having children.
Laid off? OK. Partner dies or walks away? Sure.
Teen mom with multiple kids by multiple partners? Wait a minute….
In a crude way, we can compare welfare to getting a boot on a car. Once your car is immobilized, suddenly, making those payments jumps to the top of your to-do list. Once the welfare payments stop, suddenly, getting a job goes to the top of the list.
I think we have to be honest and realistic about the judgements people make…"Why can't THEY have a reasonable number of children? Why can't THEY take care of their own kids?"
And there is some truth to the idea that people have more children knowing that they are going to get a bigger check and a bigger apartment. And that causes resentment among the people who leave for work in the morning and see their neighbor relaxing on the porch and return at night and the neighbor is still relaxing on the porch.
The truth of the matter is that we all make a quick mental calculation about whether or not someone "deserves" their welfare payment and whether or not they have been responsible in having children.
Laid off? OK. Partner dies or walks away? Sure.
Teen mom with multiple kids by multiple partners? Wait a minute….
In a crude way, we can compare welfare to getting a boot on a car. Once your car is immobilized, suddenly, making those payments jumps to the top of your to-do list. Once the welfare payments stop, suddenly, getting a job goes to the top of the list.
I think we have to be honest and realistic about the judgements people make…"Why can't THEY have a reasonable number of children? Why can't THEY take care of their own kids?"
And there is some truth to the idea that people have more children knowing that they are going to get a bigger check and a bigger apartment. And that causes resentment among the people who leave for work in the morning and see their neighbor relaxing on the porch and return at night and the neighbor is still relaxing on the porch.
15
For the sake of argument, let's turn this reasoning around, shall we?
Imagine a young woman growing up in adverse circumstances, race and geography unimportant. It's been amply documented by this newspaper and pretty much every other news source that her options regarding suitable mates will be poor. We know that men in her orbit will likely face poor job prospects, poor health, higher rates of addiction and incarceration. We also know that she herself has poor odds of a rewarding education or career.
So now you're telling this woman that she also has zero right to the one human achievement that might actually be within her grasp--to have a family. What should she do instead--slave forever at two or three low wage jobs so she can take one for the team, I.e. larger society?
Sorry but I'm not buying it. Yes, those of us fortunate enough to belong to the middle class can make choices to delay or have fewer children, because we have other things in our lives that make it worth living.
The best way to make sure women don't have children they can't afford is to give them (and their male partners) other opportunities.
Imagine a young woman growing up in adverse circumstances, race and geography unimportant. It's been amply documented by this newspaper and pretty much every other news source that her options regarding suitable mates will be poor. We know that men in her orbit will likely face poor job prospects, poor health, higher rates of addiction and incarceration. We also know that she herself has poor odds of a rewarding education or career.
So now you're telling this woman that she also has zero right to the one human achievement that might actually be within her grasp--to have a family. What should she do instead--slave forever at two or three low wage jobs so she can take one for the team, I.e. larger society?
Sorry but I'm not buying it. Yes, those of us fortunate enough to belong to the middle class can make choices to delay or have fewer children, because we have other things in our lives that make it worth living.
The best way to make sure women don't have children they can't afford is to give them (and their male partners) other opportunities.
2
You just lost your feminist credentials with the statement "...one human achievement that might actually be within her grasp ..."
Producing children which are unaffordable is neither an achievement not does it enhance society in any way. In fact it is detrimental to both,.
Producing children which are unaffordable is neither an achievement not does it enhance society in any way. In fact it is detrimental to both,.
3
And as always, it is the innocent children who suffer. We are a disgrace.
12
Hillary Clinton says she's not a Republican, but she wrote when this so-called "reform" was passed that welfare "helped to create generations of welfare-dependent Americans." - the great lie mouthed by the likes of Rush Limbaugh. One has to wonder whether she understands the causes and origins of poverty now any better than she did then, and if she privately continues to bad mouth liberals and othe Democrats who support programs that try to relieve it?
3
The welfare reform act cited in the article as Bill Clinton's is part of the Republican Contract With America. It is the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 which was introduced as a bill in the House by then-Senator John Kasich (R-OH).
13
Clinton's success can be directly attributed to that particular GOP Congress. Gingrich was a bit of a radical. Kasich, a mensch.
2
Richard Nixon, by providing some assistance to a group of people he called "the working poor" snowed more compassion than the Ckintons or many of the people commenting on this article.
10
If Nixon was running for president today, he'd have to run as a Democrat. In many respects he'd be to the left of the current frontrunner and likely be labeled as radical.
How time and money in politics have changed things.
How time and money in politics have changed things.
2
What about the children in all of this? Is it fair to deny them the food they need to survive because their parent(s) cannot find work — no transportation, lack of skills, desire, etc — to feed them? Isn't feeding the one in five children who go to bed hungry in America the minimum we should accept in the wealthiest nation on earth? And why is it that the states governed by those who preach how precious the birth of every child is, become so stingy and mean-spirited from the moment the child leave's the womb?
21
Where are the fathers in these families? No mention of
their obligation to support their children.
their obligation to support their children.
Before "welfare deform," AFDC served several purposes: a form of paid parental leave; disability leave; income maintenance; support to care for sick and disabled children; housing subsidy; job training and education assistance. In very few cases was it a permanent form of support, and for those families, it was vital because of where they lived, their lack of job skills, a disability that kept them from holding a full-time job but was unrecognized by the SSA.
Instead of fixing a system that was admittedly broken, stigmatizing, and inadequate, replacing it with something that would really assist low income parents to live a "life worthy of human dignity," Clinton and the Republican "Personal Responsibility" zealots eliminated all the positive aspects of AFDC and kept all the negative, deeming it a success because families left the program, in many cases not because they earned too much, but because of the odious rules. TANF is a miserly handout with conditions that can be changed by the whim of the welfare office, not to mention a far-right legislature.
If HRC truly cares about the low income people who were broken by the system, she will make sure that the functions served by the old AFDC are taken on by new programs that meet the needs of the most vulnerable.
Instead of fixing a system that was admittedly broken, stigmatizing, and inadequate, replacing it with something that would really assist low income parents to live a "life worthy of human dignity," Clinton and the Republican "Personal Responsibility" zealots eliminated all the positive aspects of AFDC and kept all the negative, deeming it a success because families left the program, in many cases not because they earned too much, but because of the odious rules. TANF is a miserly handout with conditions that can be changed by the whim of the welfare office, not to mention a far-right legislature.
If HRC truly cares about the low income people who were broken by the system, she will make sure that the functions served by the old AFDC are taken on by new programs that meet the needs of the most vulnerable.
6
Why is it that every time a photo is shown of someone receiving benefits, such as food stamps, it's a picture of a black person. I have read that more whites receive these benefits that black people. Is this also a racist act designed to plant in the minds of the populace that black people are the 'takers' in the society?. I think that you ought to refrain from such stigmatization, and shown the true picture.
31
It is not the total number of people who are on welfare by race, but the percentage compared to the proportion of the population.
Big difference.
Big difference.
6
Please recite facts before making a comment. Percentage wise - whites make up significantly less of the welfare recipients.
3
We have Medicaid, social security disability, food stamps, job training, housing subsidies and much more; this all sounds a lot like a safety net. If your life plan is to start a family before graduating from high school with no assistance from your partner then you have chosen a life of poverty. Yes individual choic
32
Oh so right. Children? Let them learn early that food is a crutch. Soup kitchens should have kiddy bars. Have you noticed that the jobs available for low skill adults rarely pay enough to provide child care? I guess learning to work early is another benefit of your parent's mistakes. Your statement about individual choice neatly avoids the obvious issue: children don't make the choice to be born to impoverished parents, unless you are one of those who believe that we all make these choices in some cosmic manner. Solutions to problems are not quite so obvious as you imply, but it is so much easier
your way.
your way.
8
In Michigan there is a 3year wait to even get on the waiting list for housing assistance. Social Security disability is a 2-3 yr process that now requires a lawyer if you want to be successful even if every reasonable person would say you are disabled and cannot work. Then let's talk food stamps. Here in Michigan you must work 20 a week and then you'll be lucky to get $100. Job training is non-existent, oh wait, there were two programs that would get you a great job installing solar panels or a minimum wage part-time nurse's aid. Neither of these programs got people hired. No kid, no cash assistance here in Michigan and it is 4 yrs and done for life.
There are tens of thousands of people in Michigan that want to work but cannot get hired because they are too old (40 puts you in that category), too experienced, or are now homeless and have no transportation or an address (that is a key employer requirement).
But please keep St. Ronnie's welfare queen dream alive and be sure to vote for Hillary since she is the most likely to further dismantle the social safety net and replace it with nothing.
There are tens of thousands of people in Michigan that want to work but cannot get hired because they are too old (40 puts you in that category), too experienced, or are now homeless and have no transportation or an address (that is a key employer requirement).
But please keep St. Ronnie's welfare queen dream alive and be sure to vote for Hillary since she is the most likely to further dismantle the social safety net and replace it with nothing.
3
Welfare reform under the Clinton administration in the mid-1990s was a well-intentioned effort to help poor families break out of the generation-to-generation cycle of welfare dependence.
Two major mistakes were made. First, believing that situations varied from state to state (and, they do), Congress granted too much discretion in the new federal law to the states. Second, Democrats underestimated how much a majority of Republicans disliked poor people and how ruthless those Republicans could be in expressing that dislike.
Donald Trump and the Republicans will use the current injustice as an issue against Hillary Clinton at their peril, because the cruel abuse of discretion by Republicans in some states is what is causing the suffering. Mrs. Clinton's rejoinder to an attack should be to say, yes, the law is being subverted. Let's convene Congress immediately and correct the problem.
Two major mistakes were made. First, believing that situations varied from state to state (and, they do), Congress granted too much discretion in the new federal law to the states. Second, Democrats underestimated how much a majority of Republicans disliked poor people and how ruthless those Republicans could be in expressing that dislike.
Donald Trump and the Republicans will use the current injustice as an issue against Hillary Clinton at their peril, because the cruel abuse of discretion by Republicans in some states is what is causing the suffering. Mrs. Clinton's rejoinder to an attack should be to say, yes, the law is being subverted. Let's convene Congress immediately and correct the problem.
7
Americans are tired of seeing the money grab of the poor. How was it societies problem when some of our most least educated, shiftless and unproductive people and in society run out of money?
I don't think it would be hands across America if I were many of the other commenters your run out of money, no, quite the opposite.
It's just time to get a job and make good decisions. Someone's failure shouldn't automatically convert into societies problems. You commenters want to be mad at somebody be mad at the people that are digging us in this hole and the contempt they have for all of us.
I don't think it would be hands across America if I were many of the other commenters your run out of money, no, quite the opposite.
It's just time to get a job and make good decisions. Someone's failure shouldn't automatically convert into societies problems. You commenters want to be mad at somebody be mad at the people that are digging us in this hole and the contempt they have for all of us.
13
Pre-1996 Welfare destroyed the family structure, encouraged women to have more babies as that increased their welfare check. If there was a man living in the household it was harder to get on the dole. Out of wedlock birthrate skyrocketed. After Lindsay became mayor of NY the city was flooded with poor from the south because welfare benefits in NYC were much better. Yes, people suffer misfortune and need help, and should be given help, but living on welfare should not be considered a career choice. Nobody mentioned all the free lunches and entertainment perks the wealthy enjoy as tax deductions as business expenses. That's welfare for the rich. Increase the minimum wage and find people jobs. My grandmother, an illiterate peasant lost her husband at age 26. In those pre-birth control times she had 6 children, who she raised without welfare in abject poverty. I, too, grew up in extreme poverty, and my mother did not collect a welfare check. This encouraged a strong work ethic.
20
Does Ms. Robinson receive food stamps? Housing assistance? Medicaid? The reality of our present times is the fact that there are millions -- probably,tens of millions of people who work long hours and sometimes two or more jobs that pay for their housing, their food and their medical costs and do not receive "cash assistance". Perhaps Ms. Robinson could turn to the father of her child for the "cash assistance" she needs.
31
Yeah, we all apologize that a woman with a young child who's been trying to get a job and trudging around to food banks might just get enough help to get by from day to day.
Darn sorry about that.
Darn sorry about that.
1
Can we legislate cuts in benefits to corporations and banks? After all isn't it an indication of non-competitive sloth if they need the taxpayers help?
While I'm at it---cutting aid to families? Isn't this thinking rooted in the political party that forces women to have children they are not ready to parent?
I truly do not understand Republicans.
While I'm at it---cutting aid to families? Isn't this thinking rooted in the political party that forces women to have children they are not ready to parent?
I truly do not understand Republicans.
17
Correct, the pre 1996 Welfare laws encouraged women to have babies they absolutely shouldn't have.
Paying per baby was a catastrophe. And how are this kids likely doing now btw?
Paying per baby was a catastrophe. And how are this kids likely doing now btw?
3
This country was built on the backs of slaves and indentured workers, an inconvenient memory at a time when scapegoats are once more the targets of politicians. The article reveals one more element which makes choosing Clinton virtually imposible. Have another "nice" day.
8
The 1996 law reinforces a suspicion I've had about Bill Clinton for a very long time; while his natural inclinations are generally admirable, in the final analysis, its still all about himself. I suspect that even as he signed it, he knew what he was doing was wrong and contrary to what he believed, but we're talking about his political hide. The outcome was perfectly predictable.
10
I wonder how well off politicians think we are, even with "full-time" employment. I just saw a cartoon depicting a job applicant at Walmart being told he must also apply for CHIP, food stamps and Medicaid. We still have an enormous economic problem when greed and good profit reports surpass stories of abject poverty.
14
The solution has been suggested, and implemented in some cases. Keep track of government spending on employees, and charge company for the balance.
I know it is one of those toxic topics and considered politically incorrect in some circles, but having children, when you can't afford food or rent, makes no sense whatsoever. The federal and state governments are right in setting out time limited and resource availability, regarding financial assistance. If you want children, but can't provide for them - fine, but you will have only a prescribed period of assistance from the government. Think before you act. It isn't the money/taxes that are so unfair to the general populace, it is the real sense of frustration that without limits we have helped perpetuate a permanent welfare citizenship.
35
Absolutely correct.
I just had my first baby at 44 - my wife and i have a significant savings and still find the entire experience to be financially taxing.
It's quite sad that people don't understand what's involved in "proper" child rearing.
I just had my first baby at 44 - my wife and i have a significant savings and still find the entire experience to be financially taxing.
It's quite sad that people don't understand what's involved in "proper" child rearing.
10
But once the children are there, what do you advocate? Almost no single commenter here who makes your point is honest enough to take the next logical step of compelling young children to earn their way. If you think otherwise, let's hear something constructive for a change, not more positions that implicitly fault children for their parent's actions.
@GMHK What do you think we should do once that prescribed period has ended? Let's say a woman makes what is an admittedly poor decision to have a child she can't provide for and lives in Arizona. The year ends, she has no job with hours that allow her to be around for her child and can't afford childcare (e.g., she can't work a graveyard shift or weekends) ... does the state simply stop providing cash funds and whatever happens, happens, lives of the kids be damned?
Perhaps this would be more feasible if there were also free childcare, because a woman who gets no cash assistance certainly can't pay for childcare while she's working in the summer or at 3 o'clock in the morning.
Perhaps this would be more feasible if there were also free childcare, because a woman who gets no cash assistance certainly can't pay for childcare while she's working in the summer or at 3 o'clock in the morning.
1
This example should serve as apt warning for anyone considering the ultimate consequences of giving block grants to states for social welfare spending. You don't want to be under the Arizona or Texas version of Medicare.
9
Welfare recipients are a favorite target for many GOP and far-right politicians. Over the years since Reagan painted the racial stereotype of the Welfare Queen, they’ve used this repeatedly to convince far too many voters that if you’re poor, you deserve it because you’re lazy, or a minority. However, the fact is that the poorest county in the United States is 98.5 white and more than half of the residents are welfare recipients. People aren’t on public assistance because it’s a cushy way to live or because they’re lazy, it’s because more and more jobs are paying less or being eliminated due to either automation or outsourcing. If we are going to place the blame for the increasing need for public assistance on anyone, let us place it where it rightfully belongs. It isn’t on welfare recipients, but it is firmly on the corporations who rely on low wages and public subsidies – and the politicians they have in their pockets.
114
How naive that you automatically blame Republicans.
The liberal political model ultimately enslaves and undermines those it pretends (or intends) to help.
-Liberal encouragement (or tolerance) of illegal immigration creates a vast pool of low skill/no skill workers who take the very jobs the U.S. poor need. Not just farm jobs (which we know U.S. workers hate) but restaurant, factory and construction jobs. Also, the illegal immigrants themselves are poorly treated, underpaid and are effectively a second class of citizen. But yes, let's allow more undocumented immigrants in!
-US companies would be less likely to relocate overseas (and take the jobs with them) if there were a better tax structure for all Americans, including businesses. Literally trillions of dollars of profits are parked overseas because companies don't want to pay a high tax rate. That money could be spent on new factories and jobs here in the U.S.
-Liberal education polices (as Mayor de Blasio's in NYC) of actively avoiding disciplining disruptive, even violent public school students lowers the standards for all and makes a high school degree essential worthless. Teachers are not encouraged to hold any students back because it will reflect poorly on the mythical graduation rate with its hollow diploma.
-Liberal protection of teacher unions allows bad teachers to remain unaccountable, again lowering education standards.
But yes, let's blame the Republicans because they ask for some accountability!
The liberal political model ultimately enslaves and undermines those it pretends (or intends) to help.
-Liberal encouragement (or tolerance) of illegal immigration creates a vast pool of low skill/no skill workers who take the very jobs the U.S. poor need. Not just farm jobs (which we know U.S. workers hate) but restaurant, factory and construction jobs. Also, the illegal immigrants themselves are poorly treated, underpaid and are effectively a second class of citizen. But yes, let's allow more undocumented immigrants in!
-US companies would be less likely to relocate overseas (and take the jobs with them) if there were a better tax structure for all Americans, including businesses. Literally trillions of dollars of profits are parked overseas because companies don't want to pay a high tax rate. That money could be spent on new factories and jobs here in the U.S.
-Liberal education polices (as Mayor de Blasio's in NYC) of actively avoiding disciplining disruptive, even violent public school students lowers the standards for all and makes a high school degree essential worthless. Teachers are not encouraged to hold any students back because it will reflect poorly on the mythical graduation rate with its hollow diploma.
-Liberal protection of teacher unions allows bad teachers to remain unaccountable, again lowering education standards.
But yes, let's blame the Republicans because they ask for some accountability!
2
You said it best, Darren.
1
Amazing the number of people who care nothing about the children. Their solution is to not have children, but I'll bet that most of them saying that are opposed to abortion and birth control and sex education in public schools. They blame the mothers for getting pregnant in the first place, rarely even mentioning the fathers - it still takes two make a baby. And the fact remains that the children are here, are fellow citizens of the wealthiest country in the world and don't deserve to be cast aside like trash just because they were born to people they don't approve of.
These people who are so quick to blame the poor for being poor ought to walk a few miles in their shoes - try living on $220 a month.
These people who are so quick to blame the poor for being poor ought to walk a few miles in their shoes - try living on $220 a month.
165
It's not that we lack sympathy. But many of live with full regard to not be a burden on our government AND dare not bring a child into the world when we absolutely can't raise them properly.
And I'm all for:
abortion
Birth control
Sex Ed
Morning after pill
I'm a NY republican! We need a voice - I think we found it in Trump if he avoids pandering to the extreme right.
And I'm all for:
abortion
Birth control
Sex Ed
Morning after pill
I'm a NY republican! We need a voice - I think we found it in Trump if he avoids pandering to the extreme right.
4
We are a wealthy nation only because the dollar is an international reserve currency. If it weren't we would suffer an huge decline in our standard of living because as a nation we live well beyond our means. Nevertheless, it does take two to create a child and absent fathers should be hounded to support their offspring.
1
How can you blame the fathers when the mothers are the only ones who have bodily autonomy and control over the reproductive process? A man cannot force a woman to have an abortion, so if a woman chooses to keep a child she cannot afford, why should the man be forced to pay if the technology exists to end the pregnancy? If a man accidentally impregnates a woman, he should have an out.
The capitalist ethos is the reason that this is even a topic of discussion; whether or not a young mother's presence is more worthy behind a McDonald's counter than at home with her children. It would certainly serve generations better if the latter were considered a greater contribution. The fact that the fathers are usually absent makes it even more of an imperative that these women and their children are taken care of but no—the booming voice of capitalism requires that everyone give in, that everyone get to the grind, infant in your arms or no. Trickled down straight from the industrial complex, no one shall be spared in our good America.
81
People who need income should do everything possible to work. That's the message a working mother sends. Not working while receiving government assistance is not a productive message.
6
We would be better off as a society if single mothers were at home where they could be reading to their children instead of working at McDonald's.
2
If you cannot afford to have children (i.e. the only job you are employable for is behind a McDonald's counter) then you shouldn't have children! Why should I, a single man, have to pay for another couple's offspring? That's not fair to me - I can't afford to have children at this point in my life, so I haven't! Yet so many people make the decision to have children when they can't afford to do so without government assistance, and that's just messed up. Of course we shouldn't punish the children by forcing them to live in poverty, but maybe we should punish the parents who irresponsibly reproduce and expect the rest of society to pick up the tab for their sexual indiscretions.
To claim that Arizona's law is "mean" or "hates people" is just emotional nonsense. Arizona had a monthly average of 155,000 people receiving cash assistance in 1996-97. It obviously had to do something.
As harsh as it is, the direction of any big government program should be toward fewer people receiving assistance from it over time. That's how a society functions best in the long run. Fostering dependence on government under the guise that it's really "kindness" and "caring" is something only big government bureaucrats believe.
As harsh as it is, the direction of any big government program should be toward fewer people receiving assistance from it over time. That's how a society functions best in the long run. Fostering dependence on government under the guise that it's really "kindness" and "caring" is something only big government bureaucrats believe.
62
It's not rocket science, and it's not nanny-state government policy. The answers are high quality education and easy access to safe abortions along with state of the art contraception. All of Europe Gets This.
What DOESN'T work is sanctimonius, judgmental, greed-infused public scorn that apparently expects women to abstain from sex and men to rise to the responsibility of properly caring for their inevitable, unwanted children. Has never happened and won't now. Can't have it both ways. Do not vote Republican if this is important to you.
What DOESN'T work is sanctimonius, judgmental, greed-infused public scorn that apparently expects women to abstain from sex and men to rise to the responsibility of properly caring for their inevitable, unwanted children. Has never happened and won't now. Can't have it both ways. Do not vote Republican if this is important to you.
4
No, people who notice the US gov gives farmers money to prevent overproduction of food. This is plenty reason for the government to share excess foodstuffs with the people. No harm in giving away food. I lived better because of Government cheese
3
What about the government welfare dependent elected officials, Wall Street titans and the military-industrial complex?
Moving from government "service" to private "avarice" when are these gangster scavenging parasites going to ever make an honest dollar on their own dime all of the time?
Speaker Paul Davis Ryan has been on the government employment and benefits welfare dole ever since his father died when he was a teen. But Ryan has never been bravely patriotic and honorable enough to volunteer to wear an American military uniform. Nor has Ryan ever been humble, humane and empathetic enough to serve in any human civil community rights organization capacity. Ryan is a selfish welfare king.
Moving from government "service" to private "avarice" when are these gangster scavenging parasites going to ever make an honest dollar on their own dime all of the time?
Speaker Paul Davis Ryan has been on the government employment and benefits welfare dole ever since his father died when he was a teen. But Ryan has never been bravely patriotic and honorable enough to volunteer to wear an American military uniform. Nor has Ryan ever been humble, humane and empathetic enough to serve in any human civil community rights organization capacity. Ryan is a selfish welfare king.
3
I've lived in Arizona for over three years now and there's just no way of avoiding saying that our political process and its players are profoundly misguided. Radical Republicans care about cutting taxes, especially for businesses, and have no care or concern for the poor, for children, for education or for the environment. They also do all they can to suppress progressive policies and initiatives by local jurisdictions. They glory in coming up with ways to go after immigrants even when local police agencies have no use for the state's efforts. Our statewide political leaders also spend untold amounts of public money challenging the policies and practices of the federal government in court.
133
Absolutely correct! One has to live in Arizona to see what is happening in our state legislature and with our Governor, both more concerned with "feeding" corporations than feeding or caring for the poor. This is evident in our education system also , at the bottom of the heap nationally. Yet, somehow people are supposed to get ahead on empty stomachs and empty education in Arizona!
3
You obviously agree with the Federal Government. Your right to do so. Others may just disagree and prefer following the laws.
This is very relevant right now, because Clinton stated very clearly, "If I am elected I will put my husband in charge of the economy."
The article probably would have been more useful if we had full detailed numbers for individuals (adults and children) who perhaps caused the Social Security Disability and SSI roles to surge, who in previous years would have been on Aid to Dependent Children (prior to "welfare reform)."
It would also be helpful to know statistically if families in poverty are smaller now, with wider availability of affordable birth control, and in many states, abortion. (availability some conservatives would like to see restricted or denied).
Finally, when the Welfare Reform laws were first passed, there was some increase in affordable child care. It would be helpful to know where that stands.
The article probably would have been more useful if we had full detailed numbers for individuals (adults and children) who perhaps caused the Social Security Disability and SSI roles to surge, who in previous years would have been on Aid to Dependent Children (prior to "welfare reform)."
It would also be helpful to know statistically if families in poverty are smaller now, with wider availability of affordable birth control, and in many states, abortion. (availability some conservatives would like to see restricted or denied).
Finally, when the Welfare Reform laws were first passed, there was some increase in affordable child care. It would be helpful to know where that stands.
4
Just found this on-line from the University of Michigan, about changing American families (see below). Is it possible then, that welfare reform, and/or in some locales greater availability of low cost birth control and abortion, have impacted choices made by adolescents and young women?
"As people take longer to get married, they're also waiting longer to have kids. Teen pregnancy rates have plummeted—dropping 40 percent from 1990 to 2008—and women in their early 20s are becoming pregnant at the lowest rate in more than 30 years. The group having more babies: women over 30, and, particularly, women 40-44."
"As people take longer to get married, they're also waiting longer to have kids. Teen pregnancy rates have plummeted—dropping 40 percent from 1990 to 2008—and women in their early 20s are becoming pregnant at the lowest rate in more than 30 years. The group having more babies: women over 30, and, particularly, women 40-44."
1
The facts are, not as the photo implied, that there are three kinds of people when it comes to welfare of any kind. Those that can't work, those that can, and those that won't. Since the inception of public welfare, identifying which needy person fell into which category and tailoring programs to fit the real circumstance. Of course that is more difficult that strewing benefits to all that meet the government 'standard'. To suggest that every US citizen deserves a guaranteed income, free health care and free dental care as one reader has suggested is also part of the problem. It bears repeating, nothing is free; someone has to pay, so welfare, if a thriving economy is to continue, has to be balanced with economic reality. The bigger problem preventing a solution is a government that cannot think beyond short term election promises with programs that span generations that have real achievable and measurable goals. But real good at creating massive bureaucracies that end up existing only to simply exist with the purpose lost in time.
12
Most of the "massive bureacracies" people deal with on a daily basis are private corporations. Tried calling your insurance or cable company these days? Ever try to settle an issue with a bank or a corporate landlord? And what about those labyrinthine "user terms" Internet companies force people to sign before they can even get access to their services? You can say, "if you don't like it, go to the competition," but if the competition is implementing the same unfair rules, then there really isn't any competition at all, is there? People who claim that business is more efficient than government are perpetuating an utter falsehood.
3
It is exactly articles like this one that continue to perpetuate public hatred for, not just the poor in general, but of poor females, women who are left to care for children fathered by the other part of the story, the man.
No where, anywhere in this dreadfully written article did I read anything about what needs to be done about the complicity of the fathers who abandon not only their social but also the total sum of financial responsibilities they legally OWE their young children. But, instead, we demonize the caregiver! The mothers. And we wonder why we have a deeply ingrained 'welfare queen' mentality in this country whenever the discussion of 'welfare reform' re-emerges? Please.
Point blank, we've allowed these absent fathers to go off the hook for far too long. And most certainly, those same absent fathers are perfectly content to continue to let the politicians, journalists, judges keep them safely out of the spotlight by forcing the conversation back yet again, onto the women. And so the vicious cycle continues. Demonize the mothers. This HAS to change and the sooner, the better for all concerned.
No where, anywhere in this dreadfully written article did I read anything about what needs to be done about the complicity of the fathers who abandon not only their social but also the total sum of financial responsibilities they legally OWE their young children. But, instead, we demonize the caregiver! The mothers. And we wonder why we have a deeply ingrained 'welfare queen' mentality in this country whenever the discussion of 'welfare reform' re-emerges? Please.
Point blank, we've allowed these absent fathers to go off the hook for far too long. And most certainly, those same absent fathers are perfectly content to continue to let the politicians, journalists, judges keep them safely out of the spotlight by forcing the conversation back yet again, onto the women. And so the vicious cycle continues. Demonize the mothers. This HAS to change and the sooner, the better for all concerned.
51
I'm not giving up on Bernie. A vote for Sanders as President, and a vote for all Democrats on the ballot, would give we common folk a chance at weakening the obstructive do-nothing Republicans in House and Senate, and make a start toward government for all, without party bias. The one percent vs. the 99 percent. Why in the world are members of the 99 percent supporting Hillary or Trump when Sanders is - still -- the candidate who will fight for we the people? As Bernie says, it's not about him, it's about us.
1
Until there is a male birth control pill, it is women who get to choose.
These are not 'accidental' pregnancies, but women choosing to have babies so they can go on welfare. That that is a poor choice seems not to dissuade these foolish women, so the state must do everything in its power to stop rewarding them, while not punishing children who have had the bad luck to be born to irresponsible parents.
These are not 'accidental' pregnancies, but women choosing to have babies so they can go on welfare. That that is a poor choice seems not to dissuade these foolish women, so the state must do everything in its power to stop rewarding them, while not punishing children who have had the bad luck to be born to irresponsible parents.
3
The mothers choose the fathers and the mothers have 100 perceNt control of their own fertility. I say that as a woman.
With more control comes more accountability. Stop mating with losers, users and abusers, women!!! Hold out for better.
With more control comes more accountability. Stop mating with losers, users and abusers, women!!! Hold out for better.
3
It is hard to believe there is so much vitriol about the poor in this country. I wonder how many of those who denounce unwed mothers and fatherless children are also against contraception and thr early termination of pregnancy. There is enough self-righteousness among the comments to this article to fill Hell.
The fact is poor children are here, in the richest country in the world, and as a society we must take care of them.
The fact is poor children are here, in the richest country in the world, and as a society we must take care of them.
39
You have to balance your unlimited compassion with policy that doesnt incentivize dependency
2
If we want to increase growth in the USA, this needs to stop. Also, the constant cuts to education. The GOP agenda is not the way to grow our country. Come on, we know that.
12
GOP wants people to learn to help themselves, not take hand outs
1
Guaranteed National Income. Single-Payer healthcare with full dental. Free education.
If a country wants to be considered First World, those are the goals.
If a country wants to be considered First World, those are the goals.
33
Well, they OUGHT to be. Not here, anytime soon.
5
And who is going to pay for all that? Middle class taxpayers, who have to for all their own stuff already.
1
I sighed when you said "full dental." There isn't a dentist around anywhere who will provide emergency dental care unless you have comprehensive insurance (no Medicaid allowed) or cash upfront. They look at you like you're a mental case when you talk "down payment" or "payment plan." I can only imagine how those on welfare suffer.
3
So it wasn't the lack of decent jobs, or day care so women could actually work w/o worrying about their kids, or lack of public transportation or any one of the many other variables that contribute to the problem. Folks on welfare were just lazy. How is this different than Clarence Thomas calling his sister a "welfare queen." Isn't it the same condescending attitude? And notice that her concern is alienating their supporters and not the damage this policy did to families and communities.
In her 2003 autobiography, “Living History,” Hillary Clinton said she agreed with her husband’s decision to sign the welfare bill, even though it “outraged some of our most loyal supporters.” The old program of Aid to Families With Dependent Children, created in the New Deal, “helped to create generations of welfare-dependent Americans,” she wrote.
In her 2003 autobiography, “Living History,” Hillary Clinton said she agreed with her husband’s decision to sign the welfare bill, even though it “outraged some of our most loyal supporters.” The old program of Aid to Families With Dependent Children, created in the New Deal, “helped to create generations of welfare-dependent Americans,” she wrote.
12
The Catholic Charities are experts at bringing in immigrants and getting them access to every imaginable social service. Perhaps they could be persuaded to use the talents that strain our system to help people who were born here.
31
I am a supporter of Catholic Charities and give to their annual funding-raising campaign. They are the largest charitable organization in the US and do more to assist the needy than any other agency. They have many excellent programs to aid the poor and unfortunate and do not discriminate against anyone. I applaud their efforts and without this wonderful organization those down on their luck would have no other place in which to turn in their most desperate hours of need. There but for the grace of God go I. I hope you never need their help; but if you do, they will be there for you, KJ.
1
But then who will fill those empty church pews?
1
who are all of you to judge the decision to have a child or children by a poor woman? Can the decision to have a child be understood by anyone but the parents involved or can someone on the outskirts politizing an issue in the name of their personal right to judgement understand? It is true more pregnancy prevention is needed as well as access to abortions but there are some poor women who would have children because they provide meaning no hopeless minimum wage rat race job can compensate for and for very little we could provide a little net for the poorest of us, more money throughout education, and higher minimum wage. But there is no excuse for taking this subject so personally that all programs must be cut because of some thinned out brittle judgement thrown down from our money-worshipping pedestals of capitalism. As long as working for money is all that is valued in this society, the unemployed and the poor mothers (who could benefit generations enormously by spending time with their children) must be demonized and stamped out. of course they can never be stamped out by this method; they only infinitely increase and their cry of injustice grows stronger.
19
yes, they do increase infinitely, and this is why society will ultimately fail if it permits it.
9
It seems cruel and unfair to bring children into the world when you can't take care of them. That's why people judge.
14
"who are all of you to judge the decision to have a child or children by a poor woman? "
Responders are not judging the decision to have a child. They are lamenting the requirement they pay for that child.
Responders are not judging the decision to have a child. They are lamenting the requirement they pay for that child.
2
Having children is a choice that you make based on your family, relationship and economic circumstances. When the middle class makes the decision to have a child, all these factors go into consideration. Why should the state absolve the poor from making the same choices? When times are tough people delay having children, why is one section of society immune from this consideration. These women were already struggling before they had children, they probably had the child to get the father to commit to them. The dad is out of the picture so the state has to come pick the tab, why?
47
You ask why the state - that is, why we, the people - must pick up the tab.
It is for the child to be able to live, and perhaps even thrive despite the odds: to have clean diapers; to have critical over-the counter-medicines like acetaminophen for fever and bismuth subsalicylate for diarrhea; to have bus fare for a trip to the public library or to visit a grandparent or to cool off in a public pool rather than sit in front of a tv; to have telephone service in the house in case of an emergency and so the parent can be reached by a prospective employer . . . think of all the true necessities for raising a healthy and stable child.
It is, more selfishly, so that child is less likely to be an even greater cost to society: not treated in an ER for pediatric dehydration due to diarrhea; able to build strong relationships with relatives who live in even slightly better circumstances, able to read from an early age, able to build a healthy body and enjoy exercise.
It is so the child might be able to grow up and return the compassion society has shown it, to people like me, or even like you.
It is for the child to be able to live, and perhaps even thrive despite the odds: to have clean diapers; to have critical over-the counter-medicines like acetaminophen for fever and bismuth subsalicylate for diarrhea; to have bus fare for a trip to the public library or to visit a grandparent or to cool off in a public pool rather than sit in front of a tv; to have telephone service in the house in case of an emergency and so the parent can be reached by a prospective employer . . . think of all the true necessities for raising a healthy and stable child.
It is, more selfishly, so that child is less likely to be an even greater cost to society: not treated in an ER for pediatric dehydration due to diarrhea; able to build strong relationships with relatives who live in even slightly better circumstances, able to read from an early age, able to build a healthy body and enjoy exercise.
It is so the child might be able to grow up and return the compassion society has shown it, to people like me, or even like you.
5
The realities of birth control are not the same at every income level, much as we could wish they were.
1
And exactly what do you do with mothers who had children during better days and are now poor because of no fault of their own? Kick them off the bus?
1
"The poor and the needy are selfish and greedy in my town" - The Smiths
How fitting is this sarcastic pop lyric when not just thinking about 1980s England but also the here and now in America.
How fitting is this sarcastic pop lyric when not just thinking about 1980s England but also the here and now in America.
12
Re: "The welfare law has indisputably achieved one of the goals that Mr. Clinton announced in his first campaign for president..."
And it indisputably achieved one of the goals that Mr. Clinton did not announce in his first campaign for president: cementing his and his wife's positions as lackeys of moneyed interests.
And it indisputably achieved one of the goals that Mr. Clinton did not announce in his first campaign for president: cementing his and his wife's positions as lackeys of moneyed interests.
18
This is a tricky issue. On the one hand, we did indeed seem to have far too many Americans who had become dependent on Welfare benefits (without work) back in the 90s, and yet, on the other hand, we have states like Arizona whose conservative politicians not only seem to have a basic misunderstanding of who the average poor person is, and how hard many of them are trying to find employment, but also seem to have nothing but contempt poor people, in general. But we really need to address the elephant in the room. And that is THIS: Why are impoverished women continuing to have children whom they know they cannot financially support adequately? There are many answers. First, we still haven't done enough to push aside all the religious nonsense that somehow birth control is "bad," and make b.c. (both long-acting IUDs and pills) as easily accessible (and socially acceptable) as possible. The other factor is that many young, impoverished women with little education and dim job prospects look at having a child as psychological boost. Eg, it will give them something to love; focus the attention of their family & friends on them for a brief period of time; and most importantly, give them a reason to live--as living for themselves alone, has given them very little joy in their young lives. Bottom line, these states need better job training; far better schools that provide higher expectations; better sex ed, more widely avail contraception.
83
I'll tell you why poor people often have more children than they can afford. They usually live in the states that have also cut funding to clinics that help women with family planning, or some of the states may not even have clinics.
10
Keys to the good life: Education and contraception. Can't have too much of either, at least early on.
14
Well said. And I would add child care to this list if we demand that these single mothers work.
4
The irony of the 1990s welfare reform was that the 2007-08 world financial swindle and its aftermath, brought to you by the same people who were behind welfare reform, only made this essential extension of the safety net more necessary rather than less.
While it's true that even tough love progressives can resent paying for children born out of wedlock, we progressives at least emphasize a policy of contraception on demand, coupled to untiring efforts to create jobs that pay a living wage for everyone who sincerely wants to work.
Unfortunately, conservatives nowadays seem increasingly hostile to common sense in any number of areas, not the least of which is the common sense that supports the extension of reproductive rights.
The single best way to lower the number of unwed mothers on welfare is to encourage a policy of contraception on demand, backed by programs that give young men and women the kind of real world hope that will support an ethos of delayed gratification.
In the real world, if a person has no legitimate hope of a better future, it is probably rational to get on with whatever life appears to be ahead of them as soon as they are able.
If you want to change attitudes and outcomes, then you must first make readily available the tools and opportunities that will naturally pave the way to a brighter future for all.
While it's true that even tough love progressives can resent paying for children born out of wedlock, we progressives at least emphasize a policy of contraception on demand, coupled to untiring efforts to create jobs that pay a living wage for everyone who sincerely wants to work.
Unfortunately, conservatives nowadays seem increasingly hostile to common sense in any number of areas, not the least of which is the common sense that supports the extension of reproductive rights.
The single best way to lower the number of unwed mothers on welfare is to encourage a policy of contraception on demand, backed by programs that give young men and women the kind of real world hope that will support an ethos of delayed gratification.
In the real world, if a person has no legitimate hope of a better future, it is probably rational to get on with whatever life appears to be ahead of them as soon as they are able.
If you want to change attitudes and outcomes, then you must first make readily available the tools and opportunities that will naturally pave the way to a brighter future for all.
58
The New-New Deal for today's Democrats is socializing Wall Street loses, while doing its best to provide "a level playing field" for our Captains of Industry & Military Industrial Complex,
A Rising Tide Lifts All Vessels. President Obama, 2009.
Nearly half of all Americans couldn't come up with $400 for an emergency.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/05/my-secret-shame/476415/
"In 2014, there were 46.7 million people in poverty. This is up from 37.3 million in 2007. The number of poor people is near the largest number in the 52 years for which poverty statistics have been published (DeNavas-Walt 2015, p. 12—also see table there)".
http://www.worldhunger.org/hunger-in-america-2015-united-states-hunger-a...
A Rising Tide Lifts All Vessels. President Obama, 2009.
Nearly half of all Americans couldn't come up with $400 for an emergency.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/05/my-secret-shame/476415/
"In 2014, there were 46.7 million people in poverty. This is up from 37.3 million in 2007. The number of poor people is near the largest number in the 52 years for which poverty statistics have been published (DeNavas-Walt 2015, p. 12—also see table there)".
http://www.worldhunger.org/hunger-in-america-2015-united-states-hunger-a...
9
The law sounds harsh and it is but why would a single woman who has no job has two children? Why is the father of these children not supporting them? Clinton wanted to break the cycle of dependence. As long as the government pays for single mothers to have children (and not forces the father (or fathers) to pay, this cycle of poverty will continue. Those children will be no better off than their mothers. Another lost generation. And so it continues, indefinitely.
What to do? There is no easy answer. Except, remove the incentive to have children a woman cannot afford to have by setting her up in an apartment and taking care of her. Let the father of these children do that. Change also has to come from the community that receives these benefits.
What to do? There is no easy answer. Except, remove the incentive to have children a woman cannot afford to have by setting her up in an apartment and taking care of her. Let the father of these children do that. Change also has to come from the community that receives these benefits.
36
First "no easy answer", than the caveat of your easy answer. "Change also has to come from the community that receives these benefits", you say. You need to understand that whole communities have been stripped of their livelihoods by a total free market in capital that allows it to travel the globe to find the best way to make a fast buck. Then, when that’s not enough, it moves again and goes somewhere else. If we talk about incentive, what really matters is to take away and reverse the incentive to employers to ship jobs out.
As the article points out, when times were better, welfare reform appeared to work. But now, when social support is most needed, it’s least available.
As the article points out, when times were better, welfare reform appeared to work. But now, when social support is most needed, it’s least available.
3
"There is no easy answer. Except, remove the incentive to have children a woman cannot afford to have by setting her up in an apartment and taking care of her. Let the father of these children do that." I'm sorry, do you really not know that there are hundreds of thousands of people in the legal fields, social work, immigration offices, and public high schools all over the country who spend day in and day out trying to FIND the fathers of "these children" in order to try to coerce them into getting and keeping minimum wage jobs so that their minimum wage paychecks can be garnished to pay nothing NEAR what state child support laws require of them? Do you think that "the fathers of these children" are any more responsible now than they have ever been in the history of humans about meeting the needs of the mothers of their illegitame children? They're not, and now, thanks to the gutting of both public education and the loss of manufacturing jobs and unions in this country, they are also unable to earn a living wage even when we can find them.
Come to Flint, Michigan. The poor are warehoused in apartment structures with virtually no access to what Congress takes for granted on a daily basis. I am not just talking about potable water. I am talking about grocery stores, any sort of the usual retail stores, parks , churches, banks, libraries. The list goes on and on. What a disgraceful country we have become. We use our law enforcement to support a nearly non existent viable economy in the rustbelt states. The allow our industries to leave our country and our people so a few can be ultra wealthy, with the end result being the largest government dependent society our nation has ever experienced. And it is blamed on the poor and helpless. How shameful. How decadent. How disgusting.
20
Help for the poor is and was a good and humanitarian idea. Those who are selfish, like the Republicans who only think of their own well-being, were and is still against it. The Clinton attempt to end poverty was humanitarian. Arizona is a notoriously extremely conservative state run by Brewer so it is no surprise that Arizona would be beastly to its poor population. The disadvantaged are that way because opportunity is minimal if at all at best. The country is showing its selfishness with the likes of The Rump and the insanity of incredible overspending like the likes of Sanders that would sink the US, meaning us, into debt for a decade. Rational thinking needs to eclipse the utter craziness of The Rump and Sanders and only Hillary Clinton is the sane candidate for President. Rally razzle-dazzle is an artificial way to deal with reality.
4
The vast majority of Americans rejected the idea of being able to collect welfare forever in the 1990's and still reject it today. Putting a time cap on collecting payments makes the program about helping the needy through rough patches as it was always intended, not about making it a lifestyle. Whether the correct time limit should be one year, three, or five is a topic that can discussed and hopefully the ideal balance found.
39
Our Federal government passes iron fast laws reactive to the times and lacks flexibility. When welfare reform was passed the economy was growing and many welfare recipients would have left the rolls on their own. When the economy and housing was bombing regulators looked away. After risk went off the table in 2008, the President and the party in power complained about risk that no longer existed and passed laws that likely stifled needed risk.
This reactive politics that lacks flexibility is exactly why the Federal Reserve, an unelected body is pretty much the only organization that can react to actual economic conditions. That’s why both parties have an insurgency on their hands. Our Government has become reactive and is failing the country.
Welfare reform which looks like a good idea during full employment and rising wages needed to be written in a way that took into account changing economic conditions. It wasn’t.
This reactive politics that lacks flexibility is exactly why the Federal Reserve, an unelected body is pretty much the only organization that can react to actual economic conditions. That’s why both parties have an insurgency on their hands. Our Government has become reactive and is failing the country.
Welfare reform which looks like a good idea during full employment and rising wages needed to be written in a way that took into account changing economic conditions. It wasn’t.
9
Legislators are terrible long-term planners, collectively. All they do is pass hysterical stopgap measures.
Higher education, from trade apprenticeships and AA degrees to grad school and PhDs, should be mandatory and free or next to free.
Higher education, from trade apprenticeships and AA degrees to grad school and PhDs, should be mandatory and free or next to free.
2
Seems as though free reproductive health care, education and birth control/abortions in every part of the country would do more to reform welfare than anything else. Why are people having kids when on welfare?
42
Because benefits are increased with each child. Not just cash, but WIC, housing assistance, food stamps, etc. My daughter worked for one of these agencies. One of her clients was a 24 year old immigrant who had just given birth to her sixth child. She flopped down in the chair across from the desk and the first words out of her mouth were, "What more free stuff I get now?" So how about a decreasing benefit scale instead of an increasing one. Better benefits for responsible people.
20
"Seems as though free reproductive health care, education and birth control/abortions in every part of the country would do more to reform welfare than anything else. Why are people having kids when on welfare?" Because, Peggy, free reproductive health care, education, contraception, and abortion are only available in EUROPE. Here in Jesusland, one of our only two political parties clings to the deluded idea that women should "just say no" and men will politely respect that. In that fairyland, who needs free contraception, free reproductive health care, and access to abortion?
2
One result of 1990s welfare changes has been a more than 60% reduction in the teenage birthrate - number of children born to women aged 15-19 per 100,000 such women.
Definitely a good result, though does not by itself show the reforms were overall a good thing.
Definitely a good result, though does not by itself show the reforms were overall a good thing.
24
There is no reputable study which I can find that shows a causal relationship between the 1990s reduction and restructuring of federal aid to poor children and the decline in the teen birthrate.
Correlation does not show causation.
Correlation does not show causation.
3
I think that result is SO good that yes, it does show that the reforms were overall a good thing. That result has had a positive impact over the course of a full generation and will continue to do so, if we keep the GOP from turning the clock back on reproductive rights and aid to families who need it.
I agree that correlation alone does not prove causation but if there is a correlation and also a highly plausible mechanism by which causation might have operated, then it strongly suggests that the welfare reforms were at least part of the cause of the large drop in teen birth rates.
As to the mechanism - there was a big change in the incentive structure. Before the changes in the mid-90s, a teen mother could get support to set up an independent household if she had a child. After the reforms, most teen mothers had to stay in their family household.
As to the mechanism - there was a big change in the incentive structure. Before the changes in the mid-90s, a teen mother could get support to set up an independent household if she had a child. After the reforms, most teen mothers had to stay in their family household.
1
It's unfortunate that so many comments do little more than attempt to score political points. What we need are new ideas on how to confront two very serious and very vexing problems, namely, (1) how to provide material assistance to those who truly need it, without disincentivizing those who could support themselves and their families on their own, and (2) how to protect and nurture children, whether or not their parents lead responsible lives.
I suspect that relatively few middle-class people in this country have a very good understanding of how dreadful the lives of the poor really are, and of how disabling poverty is to childhood development. The farther we remain from solutions to the problems of poverty, the poorer we will all be.
I suspect that relatively few middle-class people in this country have a very good understanding of how dreadful the lives of the poor really are, and of how disabling poverty is to childhood development. The farther we remain from solutions to the problems of poverty, the poorer we will all be.
22
And how to encourage people not to have children they cannot afford, who then put these children at risk for continued cycle of poverty, and all that it entails.
32
There are also millions of Americans whose parents were poor and experienced many hardships but who managed to make better lives for themselves. Not every story of poverty has a bad ending. Some provide invaluable lessons.
The need to rectify every instance of poverty is not only whimsical but also unaffordable.
The need to rectify every instance of poverty is not only whimsical but also unaffordable.
9
"And how to encourage people not to have children they cannot afford, who then put these children at risk for continued cycle of poverty, and all that it entails." Well, here's the prime directive: vote for Democrats, who understand and support reproductive choice as a matter of both moral and Constitutional imperative. In making abortion so difficult to obtain that it may as well be illegal AND refusing to enter even the 20 century in terms of the benefits of contraception, they show their true colors: geedy, selfish, hearltess, racist, mysogynist.
Two thoughts
1) Doesn't a bill that allows for increased assistance when jobs are in short supply and decreased assistance when jobs are plentiful make more sense? A one size fits all seems law seems to cause problems.
2) As usual increased and better education seems to be the ultimate answer. A more educated woman would allow her to make better decisions about who should be the father of her children.
1) Doesn't a bill that allows for increased assistance when jobs are in short supply and decreased assistance when jobs are plentiful make more sense? A one size fits all seems law seems to cause problems.
2) As usual increased and better education seems to be the ultimate answer. A more educated woman would allow her to make better decisions about who should be the father of her children.
10
Even married, educated men leave their wives and children. And good luck trying to get child support from a perpetually underemployed PhD.
25
"And good luck trying to get child support from a perpetually underemployed PhD." Or from any man whose first priority in life is to skirt child support.
2
You are correct Allison but a woman that is well educated is less likely to need the support of any male. Even a male that is a perpetually underemployed PhD. My point still holds.
3
This sad article brings to the fore the hypocrisy of both parties. The GOP passing stupid laws against abortion and contraception increases the number of unwanted and uncared-for children and then denies them the basic necessities of life. The Democrats accuse the Clintons of "heartlessness" as if the leader of the free world should be a character in a cheap romance novel. The simple truth is that offering generous benefits to single mothers encourages women to have children they cannot afford. Breeding becomes a survival strategy, placing a huge burden on the taxpayer and contributing to the growth of the underclass. The children of welfare mothers are not likely to go to college or to break away from the mentally impoverished environment of their upbringing. This is why I object to offering cash benefits to single mothers, especially of multiple children. Instead the state should support those who really cannot work, due to a mental of physical disability. Show me a family struggling to bring up an autistic or cognitively impaired child, born for no fault of their own, and I'd gladly have my taxes increased to support them and their child when s/he grows up. Show me an irresponsible teenage with two or three kids, and my question to her would be: "Why didn't you have an abortion?"
26
Because abortions have now become a privilege for wealthier people who live in populous, liberal areas where state governments have not regulated them nearly out of existence. If you're poor and live in a suburban or rural area, you have no access to abortion facilities.
If Republicans are going to limit abortion, they should be paying for unwanted children.
If Republicans are going to limit abortion, they should be paying for unwanted children.
24
Allison:
If Republicans are going to limit abortion, they should be paying for unwanted children.
****
Unserious argument.
If Republicans are going to limit abortion, they should be paying for unwanted children.
****
Unserious argument.
5
"Show me an irresponsible teenage with two or three kids, and my question to her would be: "Why didn't you have an abortion?"
You seem to be an articulate person. Maybe you could also do some reading about what the GOP has actually done to abortion access--espceially for teenagers--since GWB entered office. It's nothing short of cruel. Here's a start: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0553378163/ref=rdr_ext_tmb
You seem to be an articulate person. Maybe you could also do some reading about what the GOP has actually done to abortion access--espceially for teenagers--since GWB entered office. It's nothing short of cruel. Here's a start: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0553378163/ref=rdr_ext_tmb
I hate this picture; a beautiful young Black female and her son. If this picture was to reflect the statistical data and reality, this picture would be a picture of a young White female with her sons and daughters. With the systemic nature of racism in this country, we could then look at this problem of deep poverty and help the poor by not making Blacks the face of Welfare and the face of poverty a Black issue primarily. I applaud the positive the changes, but, I'm not willing to be punitive towards the poor, those policies are draconian. Where are the jobs, and job training and decent housing which helps the poor, but, at the same time will/ does not hurt the working poor. We have more work to do. But, take away this visual. It does not represent the majority on welfare roll, and that being Whites. This picture speaks volumes because Blacks and poverty, Blacks and crime, go hand in hand. Let's stop this dehumanizing of a whole race of people. Too many just give up. Let's work toward solutions that don't take away dignity, but, takes away poverty, and is not punitive to children.
65
This is very true. In addition, the father cannot join the workforce, because his wages are garnished, he can't support himself and his children (often multiple children from multiple relationships) on garnished wages. This leads to working under the table (so no resume/career building at a critical time in life) and leads to employment in the best underground industry, drugs. I am talking about white rural communities, of which I have personal knowledge.
The well-meaning programs have lead to bad outcomes, children suffer.
The well-meaning programs have lead to bad outcomes, children suffer.
1
Poor people and particularly their children need and deserve help. It is in our national interest to help these people develop into strong productive people who contribute positively to our nation.
However mishmash of the numerous existing programs to assist people overwhelms my thinking. Let's create a single cabinet position responsible for citizen support and development, move all such programs into that department and then begin to sort out what works, what doesn't and want more is needed.
However mishmash of the numerous existing programs to assist people overwhelms my thinking. Let's create a single cabinet position responsible for citizen support and development, move all such programs into that department and then begin to sort out what works, what doesn't and want more is needed.
67
Now we centralize, then we decentralize, only to centralize again until new management decides we need to decentralize. Somebody ought to a master's thesis on what conditions exist that actually call for one versus the conditions that actually call for the other. Then we could stop wasting resources "reorganizing."
1
I can understand the people who ask where are the fathers, and why aren't they paying more. Well, it's not like the fathers are making 50k per year. Also, a little known fact is that in NY if you apply for public assistance and have a child under 21, you must provide the name of the father of the child to receive any benefits.
I have a friend who is a caseworker, and she tells me that often they'll track down the father who is making ten or eleven dollars an hour and there's just not a lot of money to be collected. I paid $125.45 a week in child support for 6 years. My friend paid over $235.00 per week. Both of us were divorced not of our choice, but we paid.
I have a friend who is a caseworker, and she tells me that often they'll track down the father who is making ten or eleven dollars an hour and there's just not a lot of money to be collected. I paid $125.45 a week in child support for 6 years. My friend paid over $235.00 per week. Both of us were divorced not of our choice, but we paid.
13
Compare the $16.5 billion federal spending on TANF to the $1 trillion spent on Social Security (25% of all federal spending). But of course, the Social Security recipients "earned" their benefits, whereas the children on TANF did not earn theirs.
6
tanstaafl refers to earned SS benefits with scare quotes as "earned" to imply they were not really earned, a common attack on SS these days.
But being common does make it correct. SS benefits are indeed earned as they are based on what one paid as "contributions" to this mandatory pension plan,though according to a very progressive formula that very much benefits lower and middle income earners.
These benefits are funded fully by SS revenues, and with modest adjustments of the kind that were made in 1982, current SS benefits could be easily extended for at least 75 years if Congress would stop playing politics with them.
But being common does make it correct. SS benefits are indeed earned as they are based on what one paid as "contributions" to this mandatory pension plan,though according to a very progressive formula that very much benefits lower and middle income earners.
These benefits are funded fully by SS revenues, and with modest adjustments of the kind that were made in 1982, current SS benefits could be easily extended for at least 75 years if Congress would stop playing politics with them.
17
Sorry there was a missing "Not" in my comment.
tanstaafl refers to earned SS benefits with scare quotes as "earned" to imply they were not really earned, a common attack on SS these days.
But being common does Not make it correct. SS benefits are indeed earned as they are based on what one paid as "contributions" to this mandatory pension plan,though according to a very progressive formula that very much benefits lower and middle income earners.
These benefits are funded fully by SS revenues, and with modest adjustments of the kind that were made in 1982, current SS benefits could be easily extended for at least 75 years if Congress would stop playing politics with them.
tanstaafl refers to earned SS benefits with scare quotes as "earned" to imply they were not really earned, a common attack on SS these days.
But being common does Not make it correct. SS benefits are indeed earned as they are based on what one paid as "contributions" to this mandatory pension plan,though according to a very progressive formula that very much benefits lower and middle income earners.
These benefits are funded fully by SS revenues, and with modest adjustments of the kind that were made in 1982, current SS benefits could be easily extended for at least 75 years if Congress would stop playing politics with them.
6
Yes, we paid into the system for at least 10 years, and our Social Security payments are based on how much we earned and for how long we paid in. It is not welfare.
12
In the short run, there is pain for many families. In the long run, hopefully, this will force people to think twice about having babies that they cannot support.
Hopefully the pendulum hasn't swung too far.
Hopefully the pendulum hasn't swung too far.
41
There is no inflation and the cost of living has not increased. That is according to Mr Obama who has frozen Social Security payments to seniors. This while he has increased Medicare fees.
18
Obama has nothing to do with Social Security payments, and they are not frozen. Raises in SSA payments are based on rises in the CPI, which actually fell last year. If you don't know what that is, look it up. The President has no control over it, no matter who or what color or gender.
4
Social Security increases are calculated by a formula and have been for decades. The president can not "freeze SS payments to seniors".
2
While I'm not happy about the freeze on my monthly check as I've watched several areas of my life increase in expense, I don't think you can blame Mr. Obama. The Social Security Administration makes the rules and they factor in the CPI inflation scale. THAT is what needs to change--what factors in to inflation and what doesn't.
You should be more concerned about Paul Ryan and his band of tea drinkers--they want to make sure every American lives in poverty upon retirement; not that you'll ever be able to retire before death if they keep raising the minimum age.
You should be more concerned about Paul Ryan and his band of tea drinkers--they want to make sure every American lives in poverty upon retirement; not that you'll ever be able to retire before death if they keep raising the minimum age.
1
Remember this kernel of facts, the GOP is and at this point will never be a party to eliminate poverty in our country or for that matter even recognize the existence of it. Such meanness and neglect is shameful. However, keep this in mind when going to the voting booths to cast your vote for president-again the lesser of the evil? Trump or Hiliary? Boy, what a choice.
5
Republicans know, if nothing else, which side their bread is buttered on... it is to their advantage to maintain a despised underclass of the poor and an unending pool of desperate laborers,pushing down costs and boosting stock prices.
All that said, I must join the chorus of those who wonder: where are the fathers of some of the welfare kids? Shot? Jail? Mia?
Interesting, too, that the Gop fights against birth control and abortion, then castigates women who wind up with kids they can't care for.
All that said, I must join the chorus of those who wonder: where are the fathers of some of the welfare kids? Shot? Jail? Mia?
Interesting, too, that the Gop fights against birth control and abortion, then castigates women who wind up with kids they can't care for.
1
It sounds like Ms Robinson had another child recently, when she was hard pressed to support one (and no information on support from the father(s). Why? How can she work with a new infant, when childcare costs more than she can earn? It is increasingly harder to support oneself, let alone children, on the minimum wage McJobs that are the bulk of the job market, but how are the rest of us supposed to support ourselves and unlimited numbers of needy families?
60
How about free birth control? How about forcing fathers to pay child support? How about readily available abortion services? How about subsidized child care or coops where moms take their turn as a child care worker in exchange for free child care?
How about looking at solutions instead of blaming the single moms in poverty? If you're unwilling to support the children who are born, then you should support keeping them from being born in the first place.
How about looking at solutions instead of blaming the single moms in poverty? If you're unwilling to support the children who are born, then you should support keeping them from being born in the first place.
1
I don't see the part about another child in the article. Where are you getting this information?
4
@LT, I do support all those things, and all the things you mentioned ARE available (although not to the extent needed) There are no easy solutions. And the "single moms in poverty" do need to take some responsibility -no one is going to drag them off the streets and forcibly implant Norplant or IUDs.
2
Yes, Mr. Pear! Ronald T. Haskins helped write the 1996 federal law, but was drafted by John Kasich! Don't forget to include this, otherwise this article falls in the propaganda category....
11
Welfare is a necessity of Altruism, which declares that you are to be sacrificed if someone needs something.
Welfare is a component of Statism, which declares that the State knows better than you about how everyone should be living.
If you believe that some people should be sacrificed to others, then Welfare is something you should support. If you believe that the State should decide how you are to live your life, then Welfare is something you should support.
But if you believe that you should decide how you are to live your life, if you believe you should not be sacrificed to anyone else, then Welfare is something you should declare to be evil, and perverse, and you should work to destroy it.
No one's need gives them a right to sacrifice you. No one's need is an obligation on you. Welfare is the result of a belief in "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." This is the hallmark of thieves and predators.
Welfare is a component of Statism, which declares that the State knows better than you about how everyone should be living.
If you believe that some people should be sacrificed to others, then Welfare is something you should support. If you believe that the State should decide how you are to live your life, then Welfare is something you should support.
But if you believe that you should decide how you are to live your life, if you believe you should not be sacrificed to anyone else, then Welfare is something you should declare to be evil, and perverse, and you should work to destroy it.
No one's need gives them a right to sacrifice you. No one's need is an obligation on you. Welfare is the result of a belief in "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." This is the hallmark of thieves and predators.
10
As you deal only in extremes, the opposite extreme from your example is the legendary greed and selfishness which destroys nations as utterly as any other flaw, and has been the ultimate enemy of all things good for civilization. Walk a middle ground.
3
If we eliminated every human activity with the potential for abuse, we would all stay home and starve.
We are not all created equal, and some simply need more help than others.
That said, we also need to abandon the idea that child-bearing is a constitutional right and transform it into the serious responsibility it that it is.
We are not all created equal, and some simply need more help than others.
That said, we also need to abandon the idea that child-bearing is a constitutional right and transform it into the serious responsibility it that it is.
5
Bravo. I'm certain Jesus is nodding in agreement. But then again, Ayn Rand was an atheist who believed in anytime abortion, correct? I'll stick with Jesus, even if he is a fiction, it beats the Randian fiction.
Wouldn't sex work serve as a viable, potentially lucrative option for downtrodden welfare dependent women? The Times Magazine recently published an article advocating for legalized prostitution.
6
It might serve as just a viable and potentilly lucrative option for middle class women wondering how to finance their college educations. Perhaps even your daughter.
9
I am not troubled by asking (demanding) that adults work to support themselves and their children. Presumably this woman had this child voluntarily. And as others have said, the stork is not responsible. Where is the father?
All that said what makes me uneasy is the unemployment rate. If we are playing Musical Chairs with 12 players and 10 chairs we are dooming 2 people to unemployment. The only question comes down to "which 2?" It seems unfair to blame those 2 for this situation. If there are jobs available for Anna Robinson she should get one. If there are not, however, we as a nation have some obligation to take care of her and her little boy while we work to rectify this situation.
And I would note that allowing an unrestricted flow of low-skills immigrants, legal and illegal, into this job market (which has been the policy of the elites of BOTH parties) benefits only the employers when it drives down wages and drives up the unemployment rate. Let's see that Anna can get a job before we import more people from third world countries to compete with her.
All that said what makes me uneasy is the unemployment rate. If we are playing Musical Chairs with 12 players and 10 chairs we are dooming 2 people to unemployment. The only question comes down to "which 2?" It seems unfair to blame those 2 for this situation. If there are jobs available for Anna Robinson she should get one. If there are not, however, we as a nation have some obligation to take care of her and her little boy while we work to rectify this situation.
And I would note that allowing an unrestricted flow of low-skills immigrants, legal and illegal, into this job market (which has been the policy of the elites of BOTH parties) benefits only the employers when it drives down wages and drives up the unemployment rate. Let's see that Anna can get a job before we import more people from third world countries to compete with her.
134
The musical chairs job market is an apt analogy. Too many who lose a seat are permanently sidelined and unable to get back into the game: mothers with young children, older workers, etc, while companies woo and chase the most "desirable" candidates: 25-35 years old, no kids, 3-5 years experience. We need orders of magnitude stronger prosecution of employment discrimination, and penalties on employers for reductions in force that are commensurate with the true social costs.
7
Gee, these folks in need must just not be too big to fail.
23
Yes my thoughts Howie Lisnoff, capitalism is only good enough for the poor. They are so lucky to be living the pure version as opposed to the banks and automakers.
3
I really do not see what Bill C did 20 years ago is relative. Times have changed, if this law needs to be revised it can easily be except we have a frozen government. Thank you Mitch and Paul. I really think five years seems like enough, lets put the blame where it belongs, with the state.
63
America has never paid the reparations morally and legally due to the enslaved and Jim Crowed black African Americans who are still the suffering heirs of America's original cynical hypocritical inhumane Founding Father birth of a nation sin.
1
While I wholeheartedly agree with you, calling reality for what it is, it is the Republican Congress (yes but Mitch and Paul do not spell it out enough) that is frozen and the obstructing Republicans in the states that people need to remember when voting.
2
How about people who have children with no idea how they will support them? Continually picking up the slack for them will only reward and reinforce the irresponsibility.
1
Well, it's another advantage for Sanders to point out Hillary is a centrist Republican running on the Democratic ticket. And for that matter, Bill Clinton was Reagan's heir apparent, but his two-faced policies of prison reform and welfare downsizing were easily camouflaged by his schmoozing with African American leaders and celebrities, making emotional speeches at black churches and basking in his "first black President" attribution.
The Clinton Corporation is about as compassionate as Haliburton, truth be told.
The Clinton Corporation is about as compassionate as Haliburton, truth be told.
18
The Republican Party has become the Tea Party, and the Democratic Party under the first Clinton and the current Clinton's early down-ticket payoffs to many super delegates, has become the Republican Party in practice and ideology. Those of you who are only supporting Hillary Clinton because she's a woman should be ashamed of yourselves, because Republican policies do not support women or children unless they are wealthy. Bernie Sanders is the true Democrat. California will save the Democratic Party with its overwhelming votes for Mr. Sanders, or the Democratic Party will become a parking place for "moderate" Republicans like Mrs. Clinton. C'mon California!
12
I would never support anyone just because of gender. Those who accuse Hillary Clinton supporters of looking at nothing but gender seem to me to be guilty of looking at nothing but gender (and judging her by different, more stringent, standards than one would judge a man). I like some of Sander's positions, but not all. I can say the same about Clinton. I don't want Trump to become our President. I am in California. Hillary Clinton is way ahead here. If she is the Democratic nominee, will you vote for Donald Trump?
2
Agreed a thousand times over.
A case in favor of planned parenhood, child care, education and programs that help these people acquire the skills they need to find full time jobs. This is not welfare its prevention and common sense. Something the GOP lacks by reducing funds for the programs that will eventually give people the tools to have better incomes.
17
We have free public education in America.
Hard to force people to get one.
Have baby. Drop out. No skills. No job.
Hard to force people to get one.
Have baby. Drop out. No skills. No job.
6
What is the effect of this loss of aid on other sources of funds and systems such as workers comp, disability payments, insurance claims, etc.? What is the effect on crime levels? How are children's futures affected by the loss of aid? Is lowering aid to these levels really an overall savings for society? We are all in this together, after all.
6
They should cut it even more & disallow it for single never married mothers.
17
You should tell that to the politicians who rant against sex ed in schools, affordable, reliable and available contraception and clinics that aid in family planning. Then perhaps there would not be so many single, never married mothers
6
or confiscate the babies and use them as food for the poor. just make sure to get them young, before they get too tough and register to vote.
3
Here's a novel idea - stop reproducing if you can't afford children. We have plenty of humans on this earth. Men - get a vasectomy. Women - get your tubes tied.
111
And people who have kids when they can afford them, only to find themselves in financial trouble? What do they do, June? Shove them back into the womb?
The "stop reproducing" meme sickeningly trivializes the unintended consequences of real life.
The "stop reproducing" meme sickeningly trivializes the unintended consequences of real life.
11
Here is the perfect comment to explain the problem. Half of Americans want to make abortion illegal, restrict access to contraception, end the Affordable Care Act, then they wonder why poor people end up with more babies. 'Get your tubes tied' - is that a free procedure in South Carolina?
32
Gracious, June: Why don't YOU step up and pay for all of that surgery? You seem totally clueless about the realities of extreme poverty - one entire party has gutted access for poor women to vital healthcare services, including contraception. Somehow, it is not a stretch to envision that the party in question is one to which you also belong. That, for the record, is the same party adamantly opposed to increasing the minimum wage for those able to find work, and equally opposed to child care programs. Until you've lived on $2 a day, you have zero right to castigate the poor.
9
Bill Clinton aimed to end welfare as we knew it but he never ended poverty as we knew it.
39
Each person critical of the Clinton Presidency should ask themselves what have they done in the last 21 years to alleviate poverty. Democrats dream of Revolution while Republican achieve them. Yes, we elected Obama with a two year majority in the house and Senate. Revolution must be sustained.
4
When you're in a hole, stop digging. When you're on welfare, don't have more kids.
76
Then let's be sure that every preteen boy and girl receives first-rate sex education and that contraceptives are readily available to all, regardless of income.
18
Sam McFarland:
If you want one solution, try this: Personal responsibility. If Americans became personally responsible, half their problems would disappear. Unfortunately, this is now considered "blaming the victim". Easier to demand things like education -- ex., things from someone else.
If you want one solution, try this: Personal responsibility. If Americans became personally responsible, half their problems would disappear. Unfortunately, this is now considered "blaming the victim". Easier to demand things like education -- ex., things from someone else.
8
Contraceptives are readily available and can be obtained for free. Please stop perpetuating the myth that they aren't.
1
First, some perspective on the amount of money involved. In one Times article we were told that Hillary likes a stiff drink at the end of the day, sometimes with John McCain. I would like to point out that her bar bill in Washington establishments for the month must far exceed what women on welfare are trying to support their children on.
This brings back bad memories. I was vehemently against the Welfare bill when it was passed, and I am still now. Welfare was predominantly about children. I am ashamed to be from a country that begrudges a woman $220 a month to raise her children, who, let's be clear, played no role in whether they were born poor or rich, but are forever penalized. In fact, I always thought the payments should be more As I remember, the bill was supposed to come with adequate childcare so the women could work. Never happened (as confirmed in a recent Times article.) And deadbeat dads were supposed to be pinned to the mat. Don't hear much about that either. Yet, the Clintons have always pointed to "ending welfare as we know it" as a great accomplishment. Where is the compassion every other developed nation shows around this issue?
The feminist movement has often been accused of being for the upper middle to upper class (there are notable exceptions, like Barbara Ehrenreich.) For the most part, poor women and their issues weren't included on the feminist agenda. It would be a shame if our first woman president was of that ilk.
This brings back bad memories. I was vehemently against the Welfare bill when it was passed, and I am still now. Welfare was predominantly about children. I am ashamed to be from a country that begrudges a woman $220 a month to raise her children, who, let's be clear, played no role in whether they were born poor or rich, but are forever penalized. In fact, I always thought the payments should be more As I remember, the bill was supposed to come with adequate childcare so the women could work. Never happened (as confirmed in a recent Times article.) And deadbeat dads were supposed to be pinned to the mat. Don't hear much about that either. Yet, the Clintons have always pointed to "ending welfare as we know it" as a great accomplishment. Where is the compassion every other developed nation shows around this issue?
The feminist movement has often been accused of being for the upper middle to upper class (there are notable exceptions, like Barbara Ehrenreich.) For the most part, poor women and their issues weren't included on the feminist agenda. It would be a shame if our first woman president was of that ilk.
52
I too was, and am, against the Welfare bill as passed.
Should Hillary give up alcohol and pass that money on to a welfare recipient? How much is a drink in a bar? Let's say she has a $15 drink. Does she have two? Let's say she has two, at $30 per night. That would be about $900 per month, if she drinks every night. If so, according to the CDC she's drinking way too much! She's starting to sound like a booze hound, perhaps even having a problem with alcohol.
Does John McCain do the same? Maybe if the politicians all stopped drinking more would get done in Washington. But wait, considering some of the stuff they do, maybe we want less of it.
I agree that the Welfare "reform" under Bill Clinton did not really solve any problems and only made things worse for poor children. Perhaps it can be reversed. That will be hard since so many people think that welfare recipients want to be on the dole. They don't. Poor women have always been part of the feminist agenda it just depends what part of that agenda you are talking about.
Hillary promises to fight for higher wages, more affordable childcare, better access to higher education, and to fight for families. Should we believe her? Will she be too drunk to follow through?
Should Hillary give up alcohol and pass that money on to a welfare recipient? How much is a drink in a bar? Let's say she has a $15 drink. Does she have two? Let's say she has two, at $30 per night. That would be about $900 per month, if she drinks every night. If so, according to the CDC she's drinking way too much! She's starting to sound like a booze hound, perhaps even having a problem with alcohol.
Does John McCain do the same? Maybe if the politicians all stopped drinking more would get done in Washington. But wait, considering some of the stuff they do, maybe we want less of it.
I agree that the Welfare "reform" under Bill Clinton did not really solve any problems and only made things worse for poor children. Perhaps it can be reversed. That will be hard since so many people think that welfare recipients want to be on the dole. They don't. Poor women have always been part of the feminist agenda it just depends what part of that agenda you are talking about.
Hillary promises to fight for higher wages, more affordable childcare, better access to higher education, and to fight for families. Should we believe her? Will she be too drunk to follow through?
1
Thank you so much for your intelligent words. I am hoping that the Clnton campaign is reading this. Thank you again.
3
No child should have to grow up without the basic necessities. This 'reform' was cruel and no doubt hurt the futures of many children.
16
In the school where I worked with developmentally delayed students I saw the effects of the welfare reform bill. The worst thing was the abuse and murder of a little girl by the pedophile from whom her mother unknowingly accepted housing when she could not longer afford anything else and was not home because she was out looking for some low paying job. A mother of a child in my class saw the state take custody of her child because she, mildly impaired herself, could not even read the letters she was getting from the welfare agency and could not cope with the loss of her payments. A number of the children I worked with went from being well cared for and cheerful to looking neglected and showing some behavior problems. In one case the mother slept all day then went to her job as a security guard at night. And when these parents started to bring home some meager paycheck they put the SSI in danger that they received for the disabled child.
At one time the disabled students I taught could eventually get real jobs in the factories that abounded in the neighborhood, packing hats, cigars, candy, doing simple assembly work in a factory or operating a sewing machine. I would ride the bus with some of them part of the way to my own job when they got old enough to work. None of the places where these jobs were available exist my longer. Welfare reform was as poorly executed as the Clinton health care reform. Clinton experience is just bad experience.
At one time the disabled students I taught could eventually get real jobs in the factories that abounded in the neighborhood, packing hats, cigars, candy, doing simple assembly work in a factory or operating a sewing machine. I would ride the bus with some of them part of the way to my own job when they got old enough to work. None of the places where these jobs were available exist my longer. Welfare reform was as poorly executed as the Clinton health care reform. Clinton experience is just bad experience.
5
Very easy to attack the poor who has NO PARTY fighting for them.....but help along the corporations get WELFARE, TAX CUTS, TAX BREAKS, CHANGE THE HQ ADDRESS TO A P.O.BOX TO PAY NO TAXES....While distracting American with junk issues like gay marriage, abortion, who uses bathrooms, etc. CONGRESS is destroying this country as they perfect the art of keeping Americans angry and distracted....PATHETIC...Until we wake up and vote out the corporate shills----NOTHING WILL CHANGE...
9
But how will we afford low taxes for corporate billionaires and Wall Street thieves and buy all of the bullets, missiles, and bombs we'll need in Hillary's already planned wars if we feed these pesky children?
15
This is one of the most important reasons why it will be extremely hard for me to vote for Hillary Clinton.
I despise Trump, but "heartless Hillary" is apt in this context.
Of course, you will not print this comment.
I despise Trump, but "heartless Hillary" is apt in this context.
Of course, you will not print this comment.
19
The religious Democrats are having a very tough time this year.
Hilary has sided with everything that's wrong, but it would be a sin not to vote for her.
Hilary has sided with everything that's wrong, but it would be a sin not to vote for her.
1
Wrong-- NYT did print. Now regarding Trump -- are you kidding? Hillary is many things, few of which are good, but Trump has not said one thing about helping anybody at any time for any reason. If you want future disaster, he is the one to choose in this, the most miserable elective choice I have ever seen in more years than I will reveal.
Anything you subsidize you will get a greater supply of. The old system of paying poor people to have babies they can't raise needs to be corrected.
51
Since all American citizens are so well provided for, as this article points out, it makes perfect sense to continue to accept 1 million legal immigrants per year, legalize 12 million illegal immigrants, have tens of thousands immigrate on special visas , and accept tens of thousands of refugees/ asylees,virtually all of whom will be receiving public benefits to some degree.
38
Since 2008, the US economy has added four million jobs.
In that same time period, we allowed in eight million *legal* immigrants, one million every year, not including a few million more refugees, illegal aliens, and H1B visa workers.
We have been doing this for more than four decades, while wages for working and middle class Americans have (inflation-adjusted) declined and jobs have disappeared, but to even voice a concern means to be tarred a 'racist' and 'xenophobe'.
In that same time period, we allowed in eight million *legal* immigrants, one million every year, not including a few million more refugees, illegal aliens, and H1B visa workers.
We have been doing this for more than four decades, while wages for working and middle class Americans have (inflation-adjusted) declined and jobs have disappeared, but to even voice a concern means to be tarred a 'racist' and 'xenophobe'.
3
People need to understand: money is fungible. It does not come out of thin air. If Billions of dollars are taken by hedge fund managers and CEOs, it comes from somewhere else. For example, moving a factory out of the US increases the compensation of CEOs, but then the income of the folks who once worked in the factory is reduced. At the same time, the income of the hedge fund manager who invested in the corporation goes up.
When the budget of the IRS is cut, less money is collected by the IRS from the rich, and that loss has to be made up. There is less money for repairing streets, and less money for education.
When the rich get richer, everyone else gets poorer.
It's a great system for rich people. Not so great for everyone else.
One last thing: the entire system (especially politics) is rigged to help the rich get richer. They write the laws in exchange for donations to politicians.
If you want the system to change, do you vote for someone like Bernie Sanders, or do you vote for the candidate of the elites and the status quo?
5/21 @ 8:10 am
When the budget of the IRS is cut, less money is collected by the IRS from the rich, and that loss has to be made up. There is less money for repairing streets, and less money for education.
When the rich get richer, everyone else gets poorer.
It's a great system for rich people. Not so great for everyone else.
One last thing: the entire system (especially politics) is rigged to help the rich get richer. They write the laws in exchange for donations to politicians.
If you want the system to change, do you vote for someone like Bernie Sanders, or do you vote for the candidate of the elites and the status quo?
5/21 @ 8:10 am
32
Mrs. Clinton and her husband conceived of this draconian welfare bill which abandoned the most needy among us, taking away their food stamps and coercing them back into the labor force to perform menial jobs. It was an inhuman law and Mrs. Clinton approved it. The results were devastating to the poorest among us. Mrs. Clinton is not a democrat I can support. Mr. Sanders was against this bill from the start. He is leadership we can believe in.
9
Who should perform these jobs??
10
So your position is that I should pay taxes so that "the most needy" need not take menial jobs and can live off of me forever. And you think Sanders can win?
2
What kind of job do you think a teenage unwed mother, without a high school diploma or any training or skills is going to get -- entry level management?
Who WILL do the menial jobs -- illegal aliens? Why is it OK for an illegal alien to clean floors or carry bedpans -- but not a welfare mother?
If you drop out of high school, don't get a GED or any training of any kind -- get pregnant at 15 -- have 3 kids before you are 21 -- you have no right to complain about ANY honest work you are asked to do.
Who WILL do the menial jobs -- illegal aliens? Why is it OK for an illegal alien to clean floors or carry bedpans -- but not a welfare mother?
If you drop out of high school, don't get a GED or any training of any kind -- get pregnant at 15 -- have 3 kids before you are 21 -- you have no right to complain about ANY honest work you are asked to do.
No money for people. Billionaire money lust comes first. All part of USA decay.
11
This is what this presidential campaign should be about, but only one candidate is even talking about it.
2
Conservatives believe that welfare recipients are lazy and thus, do not deserve free money. Liberals believe that welfare recipients are victims, and thus deserve some form of assistance. Let's split the difference. Let's provide jobs with a decent wage and at the same time, limit welfare benefits--but the deal is, you must do both at the same time.
30
Sounds good but in reality we can give people only so many jobs. People have to have to educate themselves and go out and find jobs.
In the richest country in the world we should be able to take care of all our citizens. These payments are minor compared to the military budget. They also make our community better here at home. Even if single parent households get a minimum wage job they couldn't pay for good child care. We need another New Deal.
23
The military budget provides job opportunities, healthcare, subsidized housing and food for thousands of citizens. Not all military spending is bad.
1
I propose that Hillary Clinton make as a center piece of her campaign a plank that essentially does away with all limitations on wealth redistribution, it will certainly do much to assuage the Berniebros, and it would also have the tangential positive effect of putting a Republican in the White House for the next 8 years.
4
These lates cumulative time limits are not best pratice but ways to use less funds. That is morally and ethically wrong. Fewer in need get help. This is not Bill Clinton's idea but Republican states idea.
5
This is why I'm for Bernie Sanders.
Shame on the Clintons who think it's okay for a woman & 2 children to live on $270 a month. Who are they kidding? This is horrifying. I wonder about people of 'faith' like Hillary & Paul Ryan who're comfortable starving helpless people while blathering about 'dependency.' How self-righteous! The Clintons arranged for Chelsea to have a $600.000 make-work job at NBC. while Bill & Hillary have made millions selling influence.
We wasted a trillion dollars in Iraq, building roads, schools, hospitals, dropping bombs, training and giving weapons to their do-nothing army. Someone rouse W. and ask him about that.
We let people like Donald Trump & Mitt Romney get away with paying little or no taxes. Maybe we should squeeze these luxury loving guys to pay their fair share? Maybe we should be disallowing Tim Cook from parking billions in Apple profits off-shore.
We nickel & dime poor people while allowing the wealthiest people in the country to propose policies to starve the poor while we dump money into foreign aid & foreign wars, while the 1% are paid billions for little work & then avoid taxes.
This is the country we've become, where Democrats insult Bernie Sanders as an angry old weirdo, Democrats who maintain a religious faith in how great capitalism and individualism are - as long as they're comfortable themselves. Shameful & selfish.
I'd pick Bernie over Bill & Hillary any day. This is why.
I am my brother's keeper.
Shame on the Clintons who think it's okay for a woman & 2 children to live on $270 a month. Who are they kidding? This is horrifying. I wonder about people of 'faith' like Hillary & Paul Ryan who're comfortable starving helpless people while blathering about 'dependency.' How self-righteous! The Clintons arranged for Chelsea to have a $600.000 make-work job at NBC. while Bill & Hillary have made millions selling influence.
We wasted a trillion dollars in Iraq, building roads, schools, hospitals, dropping bombs, training and giving weapons to their do-nothing army. Someone rouse W. and ask him about that.
We let people like Donald Trump & Mitt Romney get away with paying little or no taxes. Maybe we should squeeze these luxury loving guys to pay their fair share? Maybe we should be disallowing Tim Cook from parking billions in Apple profits off-shore.
We nickel & dime poor people while allowing the wealthiest people in the country to propose policies to starve the poor while we dump money into foreign aid & foreign wars, while the 1% are paid billions for little work & then avoid taxes.
This is the country we've become, where Democrats insult Bernie Sanders as an angry old weirdo, Democrats who maintain a religious faith in how great capitalism and individualism are - as long as they're comfortable themselves. Shameful & selfish.
I'd pick Bernie over Bill & Hillary any day. This is why.
I am my brother's keeper.
64
Thank you for your honesty. The people complaining about helping the poor are repugnant. The nerve of the profiled woman having sex. Sterilize the poor.
Cut assistance to the poor and hungry, repeal Glass Steagall (unleashing Wall Street crime), sign NAFTA (destroying the American manufacturing base), support or conduct the invasions of Iraq and Libya (destabilizing the Middle East for decades while killing, injuring, and dislocating millions, including thousands of Americans), support Keystone (while claiming climate change is a threat), support the horrendous job destroying corporate composed TPP, until Bernie Sanders brought it to the public's attention (and it didn't poll well), provide blind support for Bibs Netanyahu (no matter how provocative and crazy he gets), accept hundreds of millions in Wall Street bribes disguised as top secret "speeches", then steal the nomination with the aide of the corrupt DNC, closed primaries, the biased corporate media, and multiple super PACs funded by an assortment of anonymous billionaires... Then lie about ALL of it.
The Clintons are NOT Democrats, Folks.
The Clintons are NOT Democrats, Folks.
21
..while you are accurate-Clintons are not democrats, rather DLC corporate bought and sold, Bill Clinton rejected 2 republican (Newt Gingrich) led welfare reform legislation…and speaking of Glass-Steagal, this deregulatory legislation was written by Texas republican senator Phil Gramm, inserted in Clinton omnibus bill, while Gramm's wife Wendy gained seat on board of ENRON in recompense. This is easily accessible public record, despite current propaganda.
7
The social assistance programs are welfare,food stamps,housing aid,CHIP,Medicaid,Earned Income credit,SSI,free cell phones,etc.All are funded by taking hard earned tax dollars from working people.There has to be time limits on how long you can receive these freebies.I'd propose one year.We just cannot sustain the freebies for life mentality of liberal politicians.
25
While I might agree with you, don't forget the ongoing corporate welfare programs taxpayer support too. There should be a time limit on corporate welfare as well.
1
We are not ending poverty because we are too busy subsidizing its expansion. When a poor mother applies for welfare, we should support her and her child but she, in turn, should be required to go on birth control. Give her Norplant in return for good child support. And when possible, find the father and make him go on the male version of Norplant. By reducing the numbers of children born into poverty, we can put more resources into education, health care, etc.
55
Leon
"By reducing the numbers of children born into poverty, we can put more resources..."
But reducing the number born into poverty isn't the endgame that LBJ had in mind! Why would they want to reduce the number of reliable voters?
"By reducing the numbers of children born into poverty, we can put more resources..."
But reducing the number born into poverty isn't the endgame that LBJ had in mind! Why would they want to reduce the number of reliable voters?
4
The media really needs to stop showing Black faces as the faces of welfare when (non-Black) immigrants are the BIGGEST abusers and those Appalachia folks too
20
How is getting TANF payments making someone an 'abuser (of the system', presumably)?
Unemployment assistance = abusers?
SS recipients who've outlived their contributions = abusers?
Medicare Part B recipients = abusers?
This list of supposed 'rightful' versus 'abusers' could go on - it's a damaging and nutty delineation (eg out-of-town drivers on roads my tax dollars maintain = abusers?) The fraying of the social contract, that shift from 'we're all in this together' to 'there are the deserving, and the undeserving' is now the leitmotif of the comments section.
Unemployment assistance = abusers?
SS recipients who've outlived their contributions = abusers?
Medicare Part B recipients = abusers?
This list of supposed 'rightful' versus 'abusers' could go on - it's a damaging and nutty delineation (eg out-of-town drivers on roads my tax dollars maintain = abusers?) The fraying of the social contract, that shift from 'we're all in this together' to 'there are the deserving, and the undeserving' is now the leitmotif of the comments section.
1
Don't you remember Hillary was flat broke when her and Bill left the White House. She understands being poor - oops that is rich - when Bill left the White House he had a good pension equal to his salary or close. But Hillary and Bill were poor - having to pay that mortgage on the house in Chappaqua, New York - oops again - and their other properties. Bill and Hillary love the poor at the polls but to drum-up some good ole southern bigoted and Reagan Democrat support they play a subtle Richard Nixon "southern strategy" and occasionally play the race care in front of affluent black and many white voters - oops - I meant African American and Caucasian voters! (Must be politically correct and not use micro-regressions). Welfare reform, elimination of food stamps and school lunch programs is Racism, dislike of the white poor and just plain hate, just basic hate. Bill, Hillary, Republicans, ignorant Republicans and those great Reagan Democrats know it is hate and they do not care. People should work, but they must live and be respected first!
6
If young, uneducated women would stop having children they cannot support, they would do themselves a great service.
68
The young and uneducated often make poor decisions. We have to deal with reality, not fantasy.
3
Yup...just say no! That worked out well didn't it?
6
Your condescension is out of touch. From Pew Research:
"The teen birth rate in the U.S. is at a record low, dropping below 25 births per 1,000 teen females for the first time since the government began collecting consistent data on births to teens ages 15-19, according to a new report from the National Center for Health Statistics.
Nonwhite and younger teens have led the way in declining birth rates in recent years. Since the most recent peak in 2007, the birth rate among all teens has dropped by 42%. The declines among Hispanic (50%), Asian or Pacific Islander (48%) and black (44%) teens have outpaced this national average, while the decline among white teens (36%) has been somewhat more modest. Birth rates among younger teens ages 15-17 have also fallen faster – dropping by 50%, compared with a 39% decline among older teens ages 18 and 19."
"The teen birth rate in the U.S. is at a record low, dropping below 25 births per 1,000 teen females for the first time since the government began collecting consistent data on births to teens ages 15-19, according to a new report from the National Center for Health Statistics.
Nonwhite and younger teens have led the way in declining birth rates in recent years. Since the most recent peak in 2007, the birth rate among all teens has dropped by 42%. The declines among Hispanic (50%), Asian or Pacific Islander (48%) and black (44%) teens have outpaced this national average, while the decline among white teens (36%) has been somewhat more modest. Birth rates among younger teens ages 15-17 have also fallen faster – dropping by 50%, compared with a 39% decline among older teens ages 18 and 19."
5
Free birth control clinics in every public middle & high school, free sterilization and free abortions would abolish a lot of poverty in one generation. Cheaply. Too bad Anericans are too maudlin to enact such common-sense tactics. Instead, let's continue wasting hundreds of billions of dollars after the fact.
A $500/month cash incentive to every woman who remains childfree age 15-26 would also be a cost-effective anti-poverty strategy. Instead we give perks and freebies to those who keep breeding kids into chaotic, hopeless environments. All the $trillions in the world don't compensate for being born to an addled, ignorant and abused 16-year-old.
A $500/month cash incentive to every woman who remains childfree age 15-26 would also be a cost-effective anti-poverty strategy. Instead we give perks and freebies to those who keep breeding kids into chaotic, hopeless environments. All the $trillions in the world don't compensate for being born to an addled, ignorant and abused 16-year-old.
78
You don't understand. These women weren't forced to have kids. They already have free access to birth control. They want to have kids. It's likely learned. Part of the unintended consequences of liberal giveaway programs that do nothing to help root cause. Starting to believe that it is liberals that cause poverty and generations of people living on welfare. What do liberals have against building sound, responsible communities?
2
There are a lot of homeless children and their mothers which was what welfare used to prevent. The idea is that poor women with no work skills will get jobs that can also sustain paying for child care is pie in the sky. Kids will go hungry because many of these women will not find good jobs, or any jobs, as soon as their assistance is over. It is innocent children who suffer. Many have no cars, no money for bus fare and no hope.
23
Bill and Hillary are dependent on big payments Wall Street millions $ for nothing money.
5
Raidavid, the young man in the picture accompanying this article, was not dropped on Anna Robinson's doorstep by the stork!! He has a father. That individual should be identified and legally assessed 18 years of child support payments -- a debt that should follow him for life until paid in full with interest.
If such a program was instituted nation-wide, I might feel a bit different about having my money taken at the point of the Federal gun (IRS) and given to those who haven't earned it simply to buy their votes.
If such a program was instituted nation-wide, I might feel a bit different about having my money taken at the point of the Federal gun (IRS) and given to those who haven't earned it simply to buy their votes.
26
More available jobs with a higher minimum wage would help. Not having babies one can't support would help too.
26
Thank you, Billary, for making poor families more miserable, more precarious & utterly unable to find jobs that will enable them to have a family & contribute to the consumer economy. You Clintons are such a blessing.
8
Arizona is a disaster of a state. This law is nothing more than legislated hatred of the poor. Where are all the jobs for these poor people?
We like to think that we live in a great country. I would submit that a truly great country treats the most vulnerable in society with respect and kindness.
We like to think that we live in a great country. I would submit that a truly great country treats the most vulnerable in society with respect and kindness.
17
Unfortunately when we look at issues regarding the poor we always look at the Band-Aid and not the cure. I think a good majority of people, single mothers such as Ms. Robinson, are trying to look for jobs. The root cause is the type of job she is looking for is going away- automated, shifted around the globe, or simply eliminated because of changing trends and technology. Helping people in these situations is more than just giving them money and telling them to go find a job. What they need is the education and skills for the jobs that are available. In my opinion, this is where government and society falters.
10
I agree with other commentators. The reported did not question how a family of three lived on $220 a month. They had to have other assistance, such as food stamps, subsidized rent, charity supplements, etc..
24
I would love to see statistics comparing the number of poor single women with children before the welfare law change and today. The struggle to climb out of poverty becomes much more difficult with the responsibility of child care. Has the knowledge of a smaller safety net changed behavior in this regard?
7
Rather than focus on any of the social issues and series of bad choices that might have rendered the situation and need for welfare, its just easier for the NYT to publish a blame piece. Of course the tax payers are responsible because they don't want to pay, or maybe really cannot afford to pay, for a never ending stream of hand outs. I believe in providing a safety net for folks who are truly down on their luck, but there has to be a limit.
16
Not everyone in this world can work. There are always exceptional circumstances where government has to pick up the pieces.
New Zealand does not boast of itself being a great nation but it does try to help and house those in real need.
So what has happened to the "Bring me the homeless and the needy" in the great nation of the United States..??
Not having a decent social welfare system will simple encourage more crime.
STAN CHUN
Wellington
New Zealand
21 May, 2016.
New Zealand does not boast of itself being a great nation but it does try to help and house those in real need.
So what has happened to the "Bring me the homeless and the needy" in the great nation of the United States..??
Not having a decent social welfare system will simple encourage more crime.
STAN CHUN
Wellington
New Zealand
21 May, 2016.
13
Stan chun,
With all due respect, as of 2012 there were 109,631,000 Americans on welfare. New Zealand has a total population of 4.471 million (2013) World Bank. So please, do not try to compare the two!
With all due respect, as of 2012 there were 109,631,000 Americans on welfare. New Zealand has a total population of 4.471 million (2013) World Bank. So please, do not try to compare the two!
2
When you look at the picture of the smiling child Raidavid, in a clean, warm , supportive environment, is this what people want, or do we want a new multi-billion dollar fighter jet, a multi-billion dollar battleship or weapon systems, that could wipe out an entire nomadic tribe or village.
You decide.
You decide.
19
People using this space to slam poor people apparently didn't read the article. When the economy rose, employment rose with it, and the number of welfare recipients shrunk. Then, in the downturn leading up to the crash of 2007, employment fell. And because the economy continues to fail for those at the bottom end, desperate people are, well, desperate.
By all means tighten the rules when there are other options. But when there aren't employment options, draconian policies don't work. They can't. Take a good look at the economy before you decide what poor people should or could do. And note that new bathroom bill in North Carolina --a smokescreen for no longer requiring private businesses to pay minimum wage.
By all means tighten the rules when there are other options. But when there aren't employment options, draconian policies don't work. They can't. Take a good look at the economy before you decide what poor people should or could do. And note that new bathroom bill in North Carolina --a smokescreen for no longer requiring private businesses to pay minimum wage.
37
Where is the effort to hold the fathers of these children accountable? Why is poverty the woman’s problem? Just because a mother is “single”, doesn’t mean she’s the only parent. Of course there are cultural elements here that the article doesn’t discuss at all.
125
Some fathers disappear. Some are in jail. Some are also unemployed. I agree that they should also be held responsible for their children but it costs money to find them and then they are often destitute themselves. In the meantime, why are we so anxious to throw women and children onto the streets? There must be a better way. There is much talk of ending homelessness. Cutting benefits to poor families who currently have housing seems counterproductive.
27
More simply put, where are the fathers? Single motherhood is, in general, a one way road to poverty!
18
Women should be held responsible for poor mating choices.
3
Republicans believe in "Family Values"..........which apparently has no value to them in practice.
Moderate democrats can be just as cold-blooded like Bill and Hillary Clinton towards the down and out.
Let me tell you the real deal; People are going to have babies irregardless of what their economic state is. The new babies are future taxpayers and contributors to society. What Bill did was tear apart the vital mother/child relationships and sent the nurturing mothers off to work and now the Democrats think they are doing good by furthering child care programs that will reinforce the idea of separating children from their mothers.
And what happens to those children when they grow up without their teaching parents? They probably become criminals having endured an early age without their parents guidance.
Clinton's and Republicans? Stupid, really stupid narrow minded people with no foresight or analytical minds.
Moderate democrats can be just as cold-blooded like Bill and Hillary Clinton towards the down and out.
Let me tell you the real deal; People are going to have babies irregardless of what their economic state is. The new babies are future taxpayers and contributors to society. What Bill did was tear apart the vital mother/child relationships and sent the nurturing mothers off to work and now the Democrats think they are doing good by furthering child care programs that will reinforce the idea of separating children from their mothers.
And what happens to those children when they grow up without their teaching parents? They probably become criminals having endured an early age without their parents guidance.
Clinton's and Republicans? Stupid, really stupid narrow minded people with no foresight or analytical minds.
7
"People are going to have babies irregardless of what their economic state is. The new babies are future taxpayers and contributors to society. "
You couldn't be more mistaken.
The statistics have shown for the last 50 years that the poor simply create more future liabilites to society through their higher birth rates.
Eventually the parasite will kill the host.
You couldn't be more mistaken.
The statistics have shown for the last 50 years that the poor simply create more future liabilites to society through their higher birth rates.
Eventually the parasite will kill the host.
16
"People are going to have babies irregardless of what their economic state is. The new babies are future taxpayers and contributors to society." Both Clintons were right that in many cases many were born into a welfare family, grew up and went on welfare, had babies who grew up to go on welfare. The object is to make people want to get off welfare but for many if they can collect enough, they are content to do nothing to contribute or take care of themselves.
9
OMG! Why are babies inevitable? Has no one heard of birth control? There is an entire subculture of folks having too many children as 'cash cows' that have finally led to some minimal restrictions on those who 'game' the system and loot the public treasury for their personal benefit.
4
Bill's welfare program was tough, debatable and a compromise worked out in Congress but why can't people see that the suffering now is many times more often than not a result of republicans draconian austerity measures, like cutting SNAP or food stamps for childless singles in MA in NY, for one, comes to mind.
If people blame Bill Clinton for the harsh inequality today and Trump repeals Dodd-Frank banking rules then what will they do when their pocketbooks' real enemies are in power?
If people blame Bill Clinton for the harsh inequality today and Trump repeals Dodd-Frank banking rules then what will they do when their pocketbooks' real enemies are in power?
11
It was Bill Clinton who sank Glass-Steagall which benefited those nice folks at Goldman Sachs to whom Hillary gives talks at six figures a pop. Wake up and
see the truth!
see the truth!
8
Another anti-Clinton article along with the quotes from Trumps latest speech also blasting Hillary Clinton prominently displayed on the front page. As one commenter does point out, the law was actually written by John Kasich. You know, the "moderate" Republican! I'm beginning to think the Times has been taken over by Fox News and/or the Tea Party.
22
Susan H - "I'm beginning to think the Times has been taken over by Fox News and/or the Tea Party."
And yet they still wholeheartedly endorse Hillery for President, go figure.
And yet they still wholeheartedly endorse Hillery for President, go figure.
4
It will be interesting to see how the amen chorus of Hillary Clinton enablers at the Times will address this. Most likely they will ignore it.
One of the more obscene lines uttered by Bill Clinton was "ending welfare as we know it." Hillary's defense of it as quoted here runs a close second.
One of the more obscene lines uttered by Bill Clinton was "ending welfare as we know it." Hillary's defense of it as quoted here runs a close second.
21
I've pointed out that the bill in question was introduced to Congress by John Kasich and passed the Republican Congress with a veto proof majority.
This bill is not Bill Clinton's Welfare Law at all, he had no power to stop its passage. It is John Kasich's Welfare Law.
This bill is not Bill Clinton's Welfare Law at all, he had no power to stop its passage. It is John Kasich's Welfare Law.
1
@fran soyer: Your statement is not correct. In August of 1996, the Senate was 53 percent Republican and the House, 54 percent. A veto override (aka a "veto-proof" majority) requires a 2/3 , or 67 percent vote of both houses. This congress wasn't even close. If the votes were there to override Clinton's veto, it was only because a lot of Democrats would have joined in the override.
3
Why did she have children?
Where is the father?
How much does the dad earn a year?
Is a neighbor with two working minimum wage parents responsible for them too - it is not rich people only who pay for bad decisions and lack of responsibility, it is mostly other relatively poor and middle class people that do. What do they think is fair????
Where is the father?
How much does the dad earn a year?
Is a neighbor with two working minimum wage parents responsible for them too - it is not rich people only who pay for bad decisions and lack of responsibility, it is mostly other relatively poor and middle class people that do. What do they think is fair????
76
We have to deal with a couple of realities. Adult people will have sex. Even if they use contraception, sex will result in reproduction. Would we like for every adult to be perfectly responsible when they engage in sex and engage in reproduction? Yes, we would. Is that realistic? No, it isn't.
9
2 million Medicaid births a year cannot be attributable to occasional failure of contraception. Come on! It's a lifestyle choice.
Further, morning after pill or abortion can take care of failures if one is truly motivated not to fear a disadvantaged child.
Further, morning after pill or abortion can take care of failures if one is truly motivated not to fear a disadvantaged child.
14
1. It happens.
2. Probably in jail, on probation or parole and thus also unemployed.
3. Probably zero.
Now, the kids need to eat and sleep and learn tomorrow. What now?
2. Probably in jail, on probation or parole and thus also unemployed.
3. Probably zero.
Now, the kids need to eat and sleep and learn tomorrow. What now?
Bill Clinton would always tell people he could he feel their pain. And in the case of those who were most vulnerable then do what he could to intensify it.
22
There is still a chance to get different leadership if "they" will let the voters decide. At least NYT published a graphic yesterday showing the depth of
dislike for Trumpism and Clintonism, and then there is this:
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/05/20/establishment-collectively-...
dislike for Trumpism and Clintonism, and then there is this:
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/05/20/establishment-collectively-...
2
Here we go again trying to re-write history. So everyone has forgotten the bad old days when entire families gamed the welfare system, collecting thousands of dollars monthly, which was rarely spent on their claimed needs? Teenager kids figured how many kids to have and not to get married to collect even more money. Many unemployed showed up at jobs and specifically asked not to be employed, but wanted to simply show they looked for a job.
I have no doubt there are truly poor people out there who need help, but any welfare reform but be constructed in a way to avoid the abuses of the past which simply created resentment by people who felt they were subsidizing the lifestyles of lazy people. And yes, there were many people then and some today who still abuse the system. Put free money on the table and people will try to grab it anyway possible.
I have no doubt there are truly poor people out there who need help, but any welfare reform but be constructed in a way to avoid the abuses of the past which simply created resentment by people who felt they were subsidizing the lifestyles of lazy people. And yes, there were many people then and some today who still abuse the system. Put free money on the table and people will try to grab it anyway possible.
65
Oh, you mean the Reagan's myths that were long ago deemed to be lies?
Any system is at risk of fraud at the margins. The question is whether or not efforts to clamp down on any existing fraud end up harming vastly more people than were ever committing fraud in the first place.
Guess where we are now?
Any system is at risk of fraud at the margins. The question is whether or not efforts to clamp down on any existing fraud end up harming vastly more people than were ever committing fraud in the first place.
Guess where we are now?
7
You really got your lessons from Reagan's fantasies, didn't you? The number of people "abusing the system" was minuscule compared to the corporate welfare and DOD waste that has been draining taxpayers' pockets since the 60s.
11
People will also grab food when they don't have any. Funny thing.
5
Cultures of dependence in America.....................
16.5 Billion Dollars to keep poor people alive.
500 Billion dollars to support the killing military.
16.5 Billion Dollars to keep poor people alive.
500 Billion dollars to support the killing military.
196
Nailed it.
9
Absolutely spot on- i guess its really about what sort of society you desire.
America in many places is deeply religious but very unchristian in its attitudes and practises whereas the uk is largely an atheist country but by and large practises christianity by the way it looks after its vulnerable and less well off people
America in many places is deeply religious but very unchristian in its attitudes and practises whereas the uk is largely an atheist country but by and large practises christianity by the way it looks after its vulnerable and less well off people
13
More like $650 billion. And rising. Every year. Shameful.
Once poor people have children they can't support, there are no good answers.
The government should provide unconditional cash benefits to young adults from troubled and disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds, as well as those who are mentally or genetically disabled, in return for using long-lasting contraception. The savings would vastly outweigh the cost.
The government should provide unconditional cash benefits to young adults from troubled and disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds, as well as those who are mentally or genetically disabled, in return for using long-lasting contraception. The savings would vastly outweigh the cost.
42
I could not agree more, Ananda. $500 a month for 10-12 years (age 14-26) of remaining childfree would be a $75k bargain compared to what they and their offspring cost the entitlements system, healthcare, education, family courts, social services, criminal courts etc over decades.
I would offer this to all young American women not just selected demographics. Cash on the barrel head every month and free community college.
I would offer this to all young American women not just selected demographics. Cash on the barrel head every month and free community college.
7
By "long-lasting contraception" I presume you mean sterilization (eugenics.) Of the father or the mother?
States from Nazi Germany to Israel to America have tried it, usually using race or intelligence as a standard. I know of no nation than generalized it for poverty that a society cannot counter
It would perhaps be consistent with the general drift of our country. You might google forced sterilization. Then look up the cost of our military budget vsour social welfare programs as "Patrick" has done below.
States from Nazi Germany to Israel to America have tried it, usually using race or intelligence as a standard. I know of no nation than generalized it for poverty that a society cannot counter
It would perhaps be consistent with the general drift of our country. You might google forced sterilization. Then look up the cost of our military budget vsour social welfare programs as "Patrick" has done below.
5
Wouldn't that make a strong incentive to kill an oops child? I shudder to think about hidden consequences of paying young women to not have children.
1
Democrats use welfare as a bribe and a tool to keep people down and under government control. Welfare should never be a permanent source of income. I suspect that Hillary's answer to putting thousands of coal miners out of work would be to give them welfare. They, at least, still have some pride -- and they don't want welfare.
30
Have you been out of the country since the mid-90s? Cash assistance is severely time-limited and has not been a "permanent source of income" for over 20 years. And Democrats are interested in decent opportunities for people and fair work. The political power of poor people is practically nil, and the Dems would have no advantage in catering to them; they seldom vote as a bloc since they are too busy trying to stay alive to pay attention to politics. As for the coal miners, as a person who grew up in coal country, I can tell you that it was the coal companies that put the miners out of work, as well as a market that no longer wants coal. And plenty of them are on disability because the companies worked them till they broke. Maybe they shouldn't be collecting disability, either, because it's "welfare from the government"?
10
The "War On Poverty" from the 60s has been lost and there are more people on welfare than 50 years ago. I think that we can safely say that war was lost.
A number of comments speak to the lack of accountability of the men who have brought forth all these dependent children and the only voice who criticized them was, ironically, the serial rapist Bill Cosby. How strange is that?
All that "feel good" legislation from the 60s had a clear message, 'You are not responsible for your children, parents, or much of anything' and that has led to "plantationism" (new word) of entire segments of our population. The whip of the slave driver has been replaced by welfare checks and food stamps, but folks who fall into this system of dependency are still slaves nonetheless.
A number of comments speak to the lack of accountability of the men who have brought forth all these dependent children and the only voice who criticized them was, ironically, the serial rapist Bill Cosby. How strange is that?
All that "feel good" legislation from the 60s had a clear message, 'You are not responsible for your children, parents, or much of anything' and that has led to "plantationism" (new word) of entire segments of our population. The whip of the slave driver has been replaced by welfare checks and food stamps, but folks who fall into this system of dependency are still slaves nonetheless.
10
Her reply was for the Federal government to encourage manufacture of clean energy products to come to the area to replace the coal.
5
The author wrote, "The proportion of poor single mothers who neither work nor receive welfare has increased sharply since 1996, according to census data analyzed by the Congressional Research Service."
I know this is not a new question, but I have to ask, "Where are the fathers, and why aren't they held accountable to provide for their children?" I realize that making father's pay child support is not a panacea, but it seems to me that they are get off much too easily.
I know this is not a new question, but I have to ask, "Where are the fathers, and why aren't they held accountable to provide for their children?" I realize that making father's pay child support is not a panacea, but it seems to me that they are get off much too easily.
325
You can't ask that question. How dare you!
8
The Clintons threw them in prison...
8
Part of the requirement for getting assistance is that the name and contact info of the father must be given to the agency, which then is responsible for getting the father to provide support, which is then subtracted from the amount of assistance received.
9
This bill was the death knell of the Democratic Party. Clinton could have defended the core values of the party but he chose not to and was supported in this by his crypto-Republican wife. As usual, it was all about the Clintons, not about the people and their needs, let alone the structures that fail to produce a minimum standard of living for American families, especially single mothers whose burdens are so great.
99
Before welfare reform, a recipient's check would increase without question whenever another child was introduced into the household. The benefits continued until the child turned 18. I'm all for welfare of some kind - we have to have it - but the old system offered a ticket for a lifetime ride of not working. I'd think about my financial situation before I'd reproduce. In fact, I haven't reproduced. I have a hard time figuring out why I should pay more in taxes to support someone else in reckless reproduction. For one thing, it's environmental suicide at this point.
7
Very good.
4
Being a single mother is more difficult than I ever imagined. Why do the Democrats (I am one) talk about the needs of single mothers without suggesting it is not the best path to follow for women or their children? The welfare law was passed to decrease the number of families dependent on welfare for years and generations. I am a Democrat who sees first hand too many single mothers & children who feel entitled and feel like we're responsbible for supporting them. We need to come up with a system for helping the children succeed in life and discouraging their parents from having children they have no intention to support themselves.
20
'In Connecticut, a mother with two children participating in seven major welfare programs (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Medicaid, food stamps, WIC, housing assistance, utility assistance and free commodities) could receive a package of benefits worth $38,761, the fourth highest in the nation.' She would have to earn '$21.33 per hour for her family to be better off than they would be on welfare. That's more than the average entry-level salary for a teacher or secretary. In fact, it is more than 107 percent of Connecticut's median salary.' Hartford Courant 2013
Also why CT is now a failed feudal state with just 4,000 citizens paying over 35% of tax revenue. Unsustainable.
Also why CT is now a failed feudal state with just 4,000 citizens paying over 35% of tax revenue. Unsustainable.
131
those 4000 'citizens' are hedge fund gangsters, who make their money on th shady side of th law
i find welfare recipients to be of higher moral character than they
i find welfare recipients to be of higher moral character than they
4
You probably calculated in doctors' fees. A recipient of welfare or bottom level social security pays for one doctor's visit more than he makes in a week.
7
Staggering information! No wonder so many people are giving up their jobs to collect the big money as a member of the growing ranks of the unemployed.
10
America you can shell out trillions of dollars on questionable military equipment but not on feeding your citizens.
America has lost its way.
America has lost its way.
188
th rich stole your country and you are now all becoming their slaves
5
I would like to hear more about the "hardship exemption." Isn't the whole program designed for people living under conditions of hardship? Wouldn't diapers cost about 1/3 of $220 a month? What a cruel state, Arizona.
16
You can get a year's supply of reuse able diapers at Walmart for about $30.
No washing machine? Scrub them in the bathtub like my grandma did for six kids.
No washing machine? Scrub them in the bathtub like my grandma did for six kids.
12
After working 30 hour a week to fund 100% of college I accumulated 28 years of professional experience. In 2007, I earned over $200,000 as a woman VP at a successful real estate firm. In 2008, I lost my job, then 70% of savings when the stock market crashed. My industry was hardest hit in the 2008-2009 recession reaching 26% unemployment in 2009 and didn't recover until 2012.
I was unemployed until 2010, worked until early 2012, then I was the target of fraud by my condo association, followed by a serious illness.
CitiMortgage then violated the "Agreement in Principal" they signed with the Dept. Of Justice, to allow homeowners, NOT underwater, additional time to sell their homes.
In 2014, I sold my condo (purchased as a single white woman in 2000 with a market rate mortgage) at a deep discount after aggressively marketing it the preceding 8 months, within two days of being foreclosed on. I walked away with my mortgage paid off but only enough money to pay rent for a year.
I luckily do not need cash help but 1 or 2 additional set backs could change this. At this writing, I have recovered from my illness, am actively seeking a new job, have family to assist me if needed but my heart breaks for the people in need who will lose their small "safety net."
I had opportunities that many people do not. If I could experience such a dramatic turn in my life after doing so much to ensure success, I cannot imagine how people less fortunate cope. One year of help is not enough!
I was unemployed until 2010, worked until early 2012, then I was the target of fraud by my condo association, followed by a serious illness.
CitiMortgage then violated the "Agreement in Principal" they signed with the Dept. Of Justice, to allow homeowners, NOT underwater, additional time to sell their homes.
In 2014, I sold my condo (purchased as a single white woman in 2000 with a market rate mortgage) at a deep discount after aggressively marketing it the preceding 8 months, within two days of being foreclosed on. I walked away with my mortgage paid off but only enough money to pay rent for a year.
I luckily do not need cash help but 1 or 2 additional set backs could change this. At this writing, I have recovered from my illness, am actively seeking a new job, have family to assist me if needed but my heart breaks for the people in need who will lose their small "safety net."
I had opportunities that many people do not. If I could experience such a dramatic turn in my life after doing so much to ensure success, I cannot imagine how people less fortunate cope. One year of help is not enough!
239
Thank you for sharing your story. I have one too. We lost everything in the Great Recession, our business, our home, our retirement, our savings and our credit. I used to feel differently about aid until I needed it. So many clueless people do not understand what it is like to have no family to turn to nor any safety net other than the State when disaster strikes and I can tell you it's a very scary area. And I'm pretty sure people at the bottom would like to not need aid. Many of us are working and have worked all our lives. It's easy perhaps to judge the lives of others, try walking a mile in their shoes.
1
Why would have children before you have a career?
45
Clearly, not everyone behaves rationally. This is not the fault of the newborn baby, who still deserves to have food and shelter. Teach your children well. Hopefully, they will be rational and successful before becoming parents.
2
No hopes of a career, not even a series of decent jobs, and a natural desire for children to love. This comment is very let-them-eat-cake....
1
Who has "careers"? Your class bias is blatantly evident.
2
At their extreme Democratic welfare policies were enabling and encouraging of a life time of independence. The use of adjectives such as powerless and vulnerable undermine human potential. On the Republican side their inclination towards Draconian cuts were totally dismissive of the fact that most welfare recipients need temporary assistance due to unexpected loss of income from failed marriage or job loss. The 1996 law was a fair compromise between the two extremes in order to address the minority of recipients who do not take measures to improve their lives. This is verified in todays op-ed piece regarding how welfare policies prevent disadvantaged individuals from relocating to areas that provide better economic opportunities.
8
I think the lack of recognition of parenting as hard work is also part of the problem. A woman with children is cooking, cleaning, doing laundry, helping children get ready for school, helping with homework, etc. etc. The devaluing of those activities, calling mothers without a lot of money just lazy and parasitic is part of the problem. If a mother is widowed she gets Social Security to help with expenses. If she is deserted by her children's father she's called a lazy cheat and not worth anything.
2
If I remember correctly, it was the republicans in congress who forced welfare reform onto Clinton. Now he is being blamed for what the republicans wanted then. I do agree that people should be trained to get jobs and/or required to get an education so they can go off of welfare. BTW, the people of Utah, the white people there, get a lot of welfare for the many children and many wives on welfare there.
22
Did they hold him down until he signed it?
2
The Republicans forced Clinton to sign welfare reform into law? This account by Mr. Clinton himself says otherwise:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/22/opinion/22clinton.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/22/opinion/22clinton.html
2
I always wondered if this bill being signed into law and the mass expansion of Walmart went hand in hand. Hillary was a board member of Walmart who kept her close ties to the Waltons and the chain needed a source of cheap labor. When you have very few options for income and have to find a job then Walmart becomes a viable option.
26
Why progressive values matter...
"It was once said that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped."
Hubert H. Humphrey
"It was once said that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped."
Hubert H. Humphrey
59
I think Trump's idea of bringing jobs back to America is the best welfare reform.
23
The jobs that Trump and Sanders talk about bringing back to America are arcane for a first world post-industrial society. American employers and workers have to negotiate new terms about the length of work weeks and compensation that is based on outdated agriculture and factory needs.
The reality is that modern American workers need more than a strong back and the ability to deal with hard and repetitive work. You must be literate and earn post secondary credentials to participate in this workforce.
The reality is that modern American workers need more than a strong back and the ability to deal with hard and repetitive work. You must be literate and earn post secondary credentials to participate in this workforce.
4
It is amazing that we want the Government to support procreation out of wedlock at the expense of tax payers.
61
Nobody actually wants that, Gandhian. The "family values" folks want all young people to be virgins until they marry after receiving "abstinence only" sex education. They can then have sex after marriage and procreate. They must never divorce. In their perfect world Dad would never desert the family. Fathers would get good jobs and the mothers would stay home cooking, cleaning, tending the children and worshiping. No young girls would ever get pregnant outside of marriage and if they strayed from the flock they would stoically give their babies to one of those "good families." Sounds ideal.
The problem is human beings don't behave. They have sex without planning well and without contraception (which the "family values" folks are against since they believe everyone should have absolute self control). The sinful young women then don't want to give up their babies. There are many unadopted children in the U.S.A. in foster care, also an expensive program with huge problems. Idealism and realism are very different. Acceptance of reality does not mean approval. We can disapprove of out of wedlock procreation or divorce (many mothers on welfare have been deserted by their husbands), but if we accept reality, we know that these things happen and those mothers may need help caring for children and babies. Some will need it only temporarily, by the way. Most women on welfare get off after a few years.
The problem is human beings don't behave. They have sex without planning well and without contraception (which the "family values" folks are against since they believe everyone should have absolute self control). The sinful young women then don't want to give up their babies. There are many unadopted children in the U.S.A. in foster care, also an expensive program with huge problems. Idealism and realism are very different. Acceptance of reality does not mean approval. We can disapprove of out of wedlock procreation or divorce (many mothers on welfare have been deserted by their husbands), but if we accept reality, we know that these things happen and those mothers may need help caring for children and babies. Some will need it only temporarily, by the way. Most women on welfare get off after a few years.
9
Well, when the government makes family planning—access to birth control and abortion—impossible or extraordinarily difficult for many women, it seems incumbent to provide the children born with adequate support. To deny it is particularly cruel.
What struck me about the photograph accompanying this article was the pure joy on the faces of the mother and child. That's the strongest recommendation I can think of for supporting this and other famiiies, regardless of their pedigrees.
What struck me about the photograph accompanying this article was the pure joy on the faces of the mother and child. That's the strongest recommendation I can think of for supporting this and other famiiies, regardless of their pedigrees.
3
It's like love the sinner, hate the sin. How do you raise these children not to have children when they are still children themselves? That's what they see, that's what they want, even if we didn't pay for it.
Get a job and give up the assistance...
Ok, legislators. We get it. But then how about raising the minimum wage?
Ok, legislators. We get it. But then how about raising the minimum wage?
95
And, how about creating decent paying, full-time jobs with futures?!
Far too facile--and cruel--for people to back time limits on assistance-- and patronizingly assert, "*They* should get a job" when there aren't any or many of the ones there are don't paying a living wage!
Whatever happened to the goal of full employment?!
Key point missed in all this-- the mistaken view that most people who get assistance are an underclass, stuck there semi-permanently living off the dole. Most people have worked and will work again; the issue is the rampant economic insecurity in the nation-- people losing their jobs and finding it very hard to find another; people falling in and out of poverty; and people finding it difficult to make ends meet even when they are working. They need some assistance to stave off absolute poverty and hunger-- for a while. There should be no limits.
It's shameful when people in upper-middle class, comfortable jobs with solid economic security and great benefits decry those who need assistance. Instead, they should decry an unjust society and economic system that doesn't provide quality schooling, health care, and jobs for everyone.
Far too facile--and cruel--for people to back time limits on assistance-- and patronizingly assert, "*They* should get a job" when there aren't any or many of the ones there are don't paying a living wage!
Whatever happened to the goal of full employment?!
Key point missed in all this-- the mistaken view that most people who get assistance are an underclass, stuck there semi-permanently living off the dole. Most people have worked and will work again; the issue is the rampant economic insecurity in the nation-- people losing their jobs and finding it very hard to find another; people falling in and out of poverty; and people finding it difficult to make ends meet even when they are working. They need some assistance to stave off absolute poverty and hunger-- for a while. There should be no limits.
It's shameful when people in upper-middle class, comfortable jobs with solid economic security and great benefits decry those who need assistance. Instead, they should decry an unjust society and economic system that doesn't provide quality schooling, health care, and jobs for everyone.
183
Well said: all too easily missed by the 'comfortable' and blind. Bravo.
1
Yes, Paula Robinson, that is a shame, but the greater shame is assuming that it cannot happen to them. I am a successful IT professional, but I grew up very poor and I have had to recreate myself several times because of the outsourcing that goes on in IT, so I certainly do not feel very secure, even though I make an excellent salary. Also, it's impossible to feel safe, when we have leaders that allow corporate crooks to get away with crashing the economy and do nothing about it. The lease of our troubles are people who need assistance for many reasons, but I can tell you this: We should not be assisting companies with corporate welfare and then allowing them to underpay employees, (Wal-Mart comes to mind, although there are many more), as well as not holding accountable these lousy so-called leaders who continue to pass laws that work against the very people who elect them, in favor of multi-national corporations. When will we learn? Electing the wife of Mr. Clinton is not a way forward. It is a backward path, and only forward, if you are a member of the uber wealthy or work on Wall Street. All of you who do not fit that description, beware: Your job is in danger as well. How are you going to feel when you need a helping hand, given all of the taxes you've paid into the system?
Bill Clinton did the right thing back then and it's still the right thing now. Welfare should be temporary and short lived for those who fall on hard times. A year is long enough. Are we supposed to give somebody welfare for their entire life? What is the point of this article? Does the NY Times feel that we should go back to the days when families lived off welfare for generations?
233
We are supposed to run the economy so there are jobs. If welfare should be temporary, then recessions have to be temporary too.
160
I guess you've figured out how to limit "hard times" to a year or less. Good for you. Perhaps you should tell the world about your historic discovery.
32
While thia scenario is certainly not desirable, please consider how many families live off perks provided by tax loopholes, lobbying and social/political connections.
20
Funny how the people who insist that the Times is in the Clinton's pocket don't seem to notice that this article calls it "Bill Clinton's Welfare Law".
Now if you want to laugh, take a guess who wrote the "Bill Clinton Welfare Law"
Seriously, take a guess ?
If you guessed John Kasich ( R-OH ), give yourself a gold star ...
John Kasich's Welfare Law passed the Congress with a veto proof majority. Bill Clinton was powerless to stop it.
... but the Times is in the Clinton's pocket. Please.
Now if you want to laugh, take a guess who wrote the "Bill Clinton Welfare Law"
Seriously, take a guess ?
If you guessed John Kasich ( R-OH ), give yourself a gold star ...
John Kasich's Welfare Law passed the Congress with a veto proof majority. Bill Clinton was powerless to stop it.
... but the Times is in the Clinton's pocket. Please.
177
I did notice how it said "Bill Clinton's Law." That was a little jarring. This was at a time when Newt Gingrich seemed to have a lot more power in Washington than Bill did. Newt was all over the news the way Trump is now. In fact, Newt is just as much a showboat as Trump. The difference is that Trump has more charisma.
3
Who signed the Republican bill? Bill Clinton.
6
I recall that Bill Clinton promoted the welfare reform that he signed. Republicans made further cuts once the entitlement had been eliminated. President Clinton should have expected that outcome. The current situation for working-class parents of young children is disaterous. Child-care is also not an entitlement. The current lack of support for children is short-sighted as well as cruel.
10
Clinton's welfare law signaled the Democrats move to the right and abandonment of their of core principals. Bill Clinton's 8 year tenure as president embraced corporate America at the expense of working people. It also set the the stage for the foreign and domestic policies of George Bush.
Now a disaffected population, demoralized by endless wars and growing inequality, is once again forced to choose the lesser of two evils in electing a leader.
Now a disaffected population, demoralized by endless wars and growing inequality, is once again forced to choose the lesser of two evils in electing a leader.
216
Not in California, the Plains States, or New Jersey and others. They still have a choice in their Democractic primaries.
1
You use the phrase "working people" in the same breath as discussing welfare. I believe that the 1995 bill had a provision for the "working poor"
3
No, not the lesser of two evils. We are given a choice between someone who reflects and fans our anger and someone who is identified with the various causes of our anger. There is much in our present circumstances that remind me of the situation in Germany in 1933 and I live in fear of what November may bring. In real dollars, our minimum wage is worth a little over $3 an hour. Although productivity has increased many-fold, our work week remains 40 hours. What I fear from a Trump victory is the possibility of street violence, not against Jews, but against Muslims and Hispanics. Well, and women, of course.
6
The Clinton betrayal of the 60-year Democratic Party commitment to poor families was the legacy accomplishment of the Administration. It boggles the mind that this family now claims to defend the interests of women. Perhaps Hillary defines this narrowly as the interests of affluent women?
I raise the point because in the 1990s Hillary refused to speak out against this law. In fact, I recall that the head of the Children's Defense Fund, Marian Wright Edelman, ended their friendship over the issue. The Presidential campaign will take place during the 20th anniversary of the Clinton sell-out of welfare assistance. I wonder what Edelman thinks of the promises that Hillary is making today to defend her "struggling sisters?"
I raise the point because in the 1990s Hillary refused to speak out against this law. In fact, I recall that the head of the Children's Defense Fund, Marian Wright Edelman, ended their friendship over the issue. The Presidential campaign will take place during the 20th anniversary of the Clinton sell-out of welfare assistance. I wonder what Edelman thinks of the promises that Hillary is making today to defend her "struggling sisters?"
210
The article fails to point out that AZ, in its war on the poor, diverted TANF funds to pay for other social services previously funded by the state in order to balance the state budget.
The chickens will come home to roost in AZ, as they have in the States of the South, where violent crime sends the fearful scurrying behind the walls of their gated communities.
The chickens will come home to roost in AZ, as they have in the States of the South, where violent crime sends the fearful scurrying behind the walls of their gated communities.
106
'The chickens will come home to roost in AZ, as they have in the States of the South, where violent crime sends the fearful scurrying behind the walls of their gated communities." Yes, the better off do scurry into the safety of gated communities and doorman buildings to escape violent crime in cities like Detroit, Chicago, Gary Indiana, Philadelphia, Newark NJ, Camden. Yes, those "southern" cities are sure dangerous.
9
Bill and Hillary have never cared one iota about the poor and especially not about poor people of color. That's the sick joke underneath their pandering and political posturing. They work for rich white people. That's who pays their bills and that's who they protect.
238
I think Vernon Jordan would agree that the Clintons work for rich black folk, too.
2
If this is true, then they are like Republicans except that they are less honest about what they stand for and spend more time pretending to care.
If all politicians work for rich white people, then working for rich white people cannot be used to choose between them and is therefore irrelevant except for political propaganda. The difference between Bill and Hillary and the Republicans is that the Republicans are more honest.
If all politicians work for rich white people, then working for rich white people cannot be used to choose between them and is therefore irrelevant except for political propaganda. The difference between Bill and Hillary and the Republicans is that the Republicans are more honest.
2
and then the black population in large majorities marched to the voting booths in the primaries and turned the key for the Clintons. The horror. The horror, as much as the irony.
1
I am suspect of the timing of this subject involving a presidential front-runner and an attempt to connect her husband to her presidential run. First of all, the subject should be about the poor and needy free of the political bantering. The problem we are talking about is people...not money...not politics...not things....people. Just the fact that we are talking about money and politics vs people should let us know how people have been devalued and actually balanced against the dollar bill. If the people involved in the bantering were in fact the people in need, I feel that the discussion would be very different. Of course the first argument will involve someone saying "my money". I find that life has a way of teaching us all. Even the ones with money for in the end, we are all........just people and people are mortal, they bleed, the can get ill, they die. Money can not stop that.
18
"an attempt to connect her husband to her presidential run."
Excuse me, have you not seen/heard/read about Bill Cinton's speechifying for his wife?
Have you not heard Hillary say that she will put Bill in a specially created presidential appointment in charge of jobs and the economy?
Hillary has knowingly, willingly, very very publically and successfully connected her husband to her presidential run. She knows she is unlikable and as her favorability declines she's relying on his political skills to rescue her.
Excuse me, have you not seen/heard/read about Bill Cinton's speechifying for his wife?
Have you not heard Hillary say that she will put Bill in a specially created presidential appointment in charge of jobs and the economy?
Hillary has knowingly, willingly, very very publically and successfully connected her husband to her presidential run. She knows she is unlikable and as her favorability declines she's relying on his political skills to rescue her.
14
The reporter should have asked the two women how they were managing to support themselves and their families on $220 in cash assistance per month, which is less than $3/person/day, and why they would not qualify for a hardship exemption.
Here are some possible explanations:
They have subsidized housing so pay 30% of their $220 for rent, or $66/month which will drop to zero when they lose the cash benefits.
They are receiving food stamps of $450/month plus WIC food benefits, plus boxes of groceries from the food bank.
They are receiving child support.
They moved in with Grandma, who watches the kids while Mom works off the books. In January, they determine the optimal amount of income to report in order to receive a $10,000 "tax refund" from the EITC. The IRS is not required to report to payment to the welfare authorities and the welfare authorities are not entitled to adjust the benefits based on the EITC despite the income that must have been earned, and the discrepancy between what the beneficiary reported to the welfare examiner and what she reported to the IRS.
There ae poor people in the world. One of the items not mentioned is that one of the women received unemployment benefits if she was laid off, possibly severance pay, retraining credits providing a stipend plus tuition.
There is no way these women are living on $220 per month, and it is the reporters responsibility to evaluate the veracity of the assertions.
Here are some possible explanations:
They have subsidized housing so pay 30% of their $220 for rent, or $66/month which will drop to zero when they lose the cash benefits.
They are receiving food stamps of $450/month plus WIC food benefits, plus boxes of groceries from the food bank.
They are receiving child support.
They moved in with Grandma, who watches the kids while Mom works off the books. In January, they determine the optimal amount of income to report in order to receive a $10,000 "tax refund" from the EITC. The IRS is not required to report to payment to the welfare authorities and the welfare authorities are not entitled to adjust the benefits based on the EITC despite the income that must have been earned, and the discrepancy between what the beneficiary reported to the welfare examiner and what she reported to the IRS.
There ae poor people in the world. One of the items not mentioned is that one of the women received unemployment benefits if she was laid off, possibly severance pay, retraining credits providing a stipend plus tuition.
There is no way these women are living on $220 per month, and it is the reporters responsibility to evaluate the veracity of the assertions.
259
You forgot how they're probably getting filthy rich donating plasma.
144
These are exactly the questions and possible answers that make this is a very incomplete report.
6
It is ironic that the most successful government job skill training has been "How to work the system".
5
There are a lot of skeletons in Hillary Clinton's closet, and there is one who often stands beside her, the unofficial VP or even, given his dominant nature, the unofficial but acting P. Too bad she does not know how to draw Bernie into her camp, but then does any Clinton want an equal?
43
Most people don't want our government handing out welfare. This only helps Clinton.
14
Agreed. A large welfare population is the way the Democrats buy more votes as "the poor" wallow in poverty generation after generation, clinging to their "free" phones and voting Democrat as the unmarried welfare women produce legions of children for which they can not pay themselves. Where is the mention of fathers supporting these children? Where is the mention that most of these children end up producing more welfare mothers and the criminal underclass generation after generation? I don't care if these women reproduce, I care that I am expected to pay for the product of their casual sexual liaisons.
20
I invite you, RJS, to spend some time with Anna Robinson and watch her daily struggle up close for may be one day. I would hope it would open yOur heart to the utter heartlessness and pettiness of an ideology that denies a single mother who's willing to work and looking for work a shabby 200$ a month, while millions of state funds are shoveled into things like sports stadiums and further tax breaks for billionaires. I don't think, at least I hope, you do not speak for "most Americans." Most Americans do not want to see single mothers starving.
11
Bill Clinton's purpose back then was to get rid of welfare: He never had any intention of getting rid of poverty.
That was then, this is now. Now we have 20 additional years of every other President and Congress adding in their cuts... year after year after year....
Obviously, this country is too broke to be able to afford our population.
Someone must be left behind.
I hoosie the rich take the knock next time.
I propose a Maximum Wage and the rate of Eisenhower: that would be 94%.
Maximum wage would be limited to 20 times the lowest wage. Anything over that gets a 96% taxation.
Got it?
Bill Clinton was wrong then.
The Bill Clinton wanna-bees are wrong now.
You read this article, Hillary, and just for one little second try to see yourself living on $278 for a month.
Then picture yourself losing it because, oh, we'll let the rich make alllll the money they want, month after month, year after year, for decades, and we certainly will NOT TAX any person of wealth - but those AFDC rip-offs? Oh, shame, shame on those who wouldn't dream of impeding a rich man.... oh, never will we pass a law to haul in their swinish ways.
One year for a poor person to live.
Forever for the person who has their Gucci boot on their throat.
That was then, this is now. Now we have 20 additional years of every other President and Congress adding in their cuts... year after year after year....
Obviously, this country is too broke to be able to afford our population.
Someone must be left behind.
I hoosie the rich take the knock next time.
I propose a Maximum Wage and the rate of Eisenhower: that would be 94%.
Maximum wage would be limited to 20 times the lowest wage. Anything over that gets a 96% taxation.
Got it?
Bill Clinton was wrong then.
The Bill Clinton wanna-bees are wrong now.
You read this article, Hillary, and just for one little second try to see yourself living on $278 for a month.
Then picture yourself losing it because, oh, we'll let the rich make alllll the money they want, month after month, year after year, for decades, and we certainly will NOT TAX any person of wealth - but those AFDC rip-offs? Oh, shame, shame on those who wouldn't dream of impeding a rich man.... oh, never will we pass a law to haul in their swinish ways.
One year for a poor person to live.
Forever for the person who has their Gucci boot on their throat.
312
Hillary's hair and make-up cost more than $278 per week.
9
Have you ever done an in-depth research into how this law came about? Fran soyer gave the background to it in this comments section. Please read it carefully. Would the law not have been implemented had Bill Clinton vetoed it since it passed with veto-proof majority? I find increasingly shocking that many citizens of USA make judgements based on superficial information and never bother to dig deep. So many comments are based on emotion rather than facts.That's why concerted propaganda to destroy some public figures become so successful.
10
And she probably does not receive any Housing assistance, Food stamps, Milk program benefits, Utility assistance, or any of the other 16 Assistance for the Poor Programs offered by Arizona.
9