Poverty in the US is the caused by.

[kcantankerous]

1. Formal education at or lower than highschool level.

2. Pregnancy before the age of 25 or so.

3. Marriage in which both parties make very little income.

4. Flat out laziness, absense of proactivity.

Basically very few people are poor because they're forced to be. I believe 95% or the poor are a product own laziness. And the other 5% fall in the first 3 catagories. There's a statistic which ticklechic gave me but I couldn't remember what the exact figures when I find it I'll post it. Furthermore, I know there are exceptions to the rule. But the ones who are emparvished now fall into one or more of the above catagories.

[drew70]

I think some people stay poor because there are government incentives to do so. Housing subsidization, welfare, food stamps, etc. And for each baby momma can squeeze out, the welfare check is that much bigger. Maybe even enough to buy a new color TV to watch Oprah and Judge Judy.

[kcantankerous]

you know drew you have something there. I wish instead of all these welfare programs we should start work programs or some type of education program. Sort of like highschools for adults or something. "I like the old saying give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." We need to start instituting programs that help the poor who want to be helped. Those that milk the system now would instead be forced to help themselves, panhandle, or perish.

[Mimi]

When Tommy Thompson was the govenor here in Wisconsin he developed a new program called "W-2" similar to what you've proposed.

Folks in our state who receive any assistance from the state (food stamps, government checks/AFDC, free or low premium health insurance, etc) are required to either work a specific amount of hours each month (depending on the level of assistance they receive) or attend school or job training courses. They help you find work or help you get enrolled in school if you are having trouble with either. If someone does not perform their required monthly work or schooling expectations without legitimate reason, they lose their benefits. It's been highly successful here for several years now. I'm really surprised more states have not instated similar programs across the U.S.

[ShadowTklr]

Actually, President Clinton instituted the Work Emplyment Program (WEP) or Welfare-To-Work program (as it was also called) which was designed to create subsidized employment for people who were on long term welfare. The program earmarked approximately $150 Million to states, with an emphasis on fathers in particular, to help them get jobs so they could support their families, and meet their child support obligations.

As a result, in 1997, welfare rolls were at their lowest rates in 30 years having put to work 5.5 million welfare recipients out of 14 million enrolled prior to the program. The fix looked good for a while, because people were now being forced to work. But the Program raised new concerns.

The problem as it existed then and now is that minimum wage increases at a rate inconsistent with the fast moving cost of living, and for most welfare recipients, it literally doesn't "Pay" to work for the wages being offered. Single parents must first find facilities to care for their children while they're at work. The cost is so prohibitive to their paychecks at the end of the week, that there isn't enough left to pay utilities, bus fare, food, rent, and other miscellaneous expenses that are needed to adequately care for their families. Working a full time job means that welfare is no longer an option, so the question of working has to be balanced in a matter of dollars and cents. If you got paid more money to stay home than you did working a 40 hour a week job, and you could stay with your children, what would you do?

Citing laziness as THE problem for welfare, rather than A problem is an overly simplistic view of the indigent, and welfare system in America. The answer does not lie in increasing welfare benefits, but more likely lies in increasing wages and creating sweeping changes in job re-eduction programs nationwide in order to give incentive to able-bodied welfare recipients to get jobs and keep them.

[kcantankerous]

Mimi excellent post, Shadow I think minumum wage increases will cause even more poverty overall. Because credentials will become even more important. Furthermore, you are right about the situation with the children, which fits under catagory #3. I wonder if anyone has ideas on how to remedy that situation. It's pretty much implicite that if we push education or re education the quality of life top to bottom will improve in the United States. But again the child situation is an issue that I don't have an answer for. Possibly instead of just a check. What if the poor got, some type of credit toward some kind of youth center or something that the kids could to while their parents are at school or working. Hmm can anyone give a good solution to this problem?

[Mimi]

That's actually included with our program. Folks who are performing work for their benefits from the state, or folks who do have full time jobs but are still in the low income catagory due to low minimum wages get their child care paid for by the state. You choose a facility or independant child care giver that is certified by the state, and they directly pay the person or facility for all the child care provided each month.

I still would like to see a minimum wage increase, though. The minimum wage simply can not compare to the ever rising cost of living (here in Wisconsin it is only $5.70/hour, and that was JUST raised from $5.15/hour 3 months ago...it had been $5.15/hour for 7 or 8 years prior to that), and it really hurts having to decide what to sacrifice each month when there's simply not enough money to cover it all.

[General Zod]

Sometimes I wonder if a minimum wage increase is the answer Don't call me bad names just yet :xlime: The big business can afford it I am talking about the small business Take a small resturant that may have been family owned for a few generations Every time that there is a minimun wage increase that resturant will have to increase the prices to make money to stay in business

In time those price increases may mean a slow down in business That may force them to close down That means less jobs I have driven my rig through a lot of small towns over the past 9 years It saddens me to see a lot of those stores etc having to close down because they can't afford to stay open

I hope my ramblings made sense

[MrMacphisto]

Basically very few people are poor because they're forced to be. I believe 95% or the poor are a product own laziness. And the other 5% fall in the first 3 catagories. There's a statistic which ticklechic gave me but I couldn't remember what the exact figures when I find it I'll post it. Furthermore, I know there are exceptions to the rule. But the ones who are emparvished now fall into one or more of the above catagories.

The emparvished piss me off too. Especially when they steal my parvishes.

[MrMacphisto]

you know drew you have something there. I wish instead of all these welfare programs we should start work programs or some type of education program. Sort of like highschools for adults or something. "I like the old saying give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." We need to start instituting programs that help the poor who want to be helped. Those that milk the system now would instead be forced to help themselves, panhandle, or perish.

I'm glad you mention this. Note the difference in your response to Drew's. Drew appears to only be concerned with not helping the poor. You, on the other hand, have actually come up with a viable solution to this problem -- one that I actually agree with.

[MrMacphisto]

The problem as it existed then and now is that minimum wage increases at a rate inconsistent with the fast moving cost of living, and for most welfare recipients, it literally doesn't "Pay" to work for the wages being offered. Single parents must first find facilities to care for their children while they're at work. The cost is so prohibitive to their paychecks at the end of the week, that there isn't enough left to pay utilities, bus fare, food, rent, and other miscellaneous expenses that are needed to adequately care for their families. Working a full time job means that welfare is no longer an option, so the question of working has to be balanced in a matter of dollars and cents. If you got paid more money to stay home than you did working a 40 hour a week job, and you could stay with your children, what would you do?

Citing laziness as THE problem for welfare, rather than A problem is an overly simplistic view of the indigent, and welfare system in America. The answer does not lie in increasing welfare benefits, but more likely lies in increasing wages and creating sweeping changes in job re-eduction programs nationwide in order to give incentive to able-bodied welfare recipients to get jobs and keep them.

I agree with all this, but unfortunately, most of the people running the government don't give a shit about the poor or the middle class. They just want to receive kickbacks from special interest groups and line their pockets with government pork money. They also enjoy decreasing taxes on the rich before considering any wage increases.

Because of all this, the changes you recommend will probably never happen in this country.... unless we enter another Great Depression that forces us to recognize the dire issue of poverty here....

[MrMacphisto]

Mimi excellent post, Shadow I think minumum wage increases will cause even more poverty overall. Because credentials will become even more important.

Incorrect... However, increasing the minimum wage will tempt more employers to hire illegal labor though. This can be countered by creating stiff penalties for hiring illegals, which would make the "credential" of citizenship a lot more important in hiring.

Furthermore, you are right about the situation with the children, which fits under catagory #3. I wonder if anyone has ideas on how to remedy that situation. It's pretty much implicite that if we push education or re education the quality of life top to bottom will improve in the United States. But again the child situation is an issue that I don't have an answer for. Possibly instead of just a check. What if the poor got, some type of credit toward some kind of youth center or something that the kids could to while their parents are at school or working. Hmm can anyone give a good solution to this problem?

Government funded daycare would probably help out a lot. Then again, I think this would help out the middle class as well. Imagine how much the average family would save on childcare costs if the government provided a partially-subsidized daycare service throughout the country.

Now, before you mention it, I do think that the child tax credit system should have a limit. The government shouldn't send the message that you ought to pump out more kids than you can afford. The limit on the child tax credit could be 2 children. Beyond two kids, families should have to deal with the consequences on their own terms.

[Cosmo_ac]

Government funded daycare would probably help out a lot. Then again, I think this would help out the middle class as well. Imagine how much the average family would save on childcare costs if the government provided a partially-subsidized daycare service throughout the country.

Actually, Canada is putting something like this into effect. I'll let you know how it turns out.

[kcantankerous]

MrMacphisto you are making some excellent points. You are currect about the uses of illigals will increase if minimum wage does, however only in jobs that require only a hs diploma or less, in my opinion. Other than that companies that require a hire level of education will look for only the most highly creditialed people. I think the ones who'd suffer from hire minimum wages are students and teens, and people with BA degrees.

gen.zod you are currect we would be crippling small businesses with an increase in minimum wage. Thoughs that are looking to start a business from the ground up know it isn't cheap by any means.

MrMacphisto it seems obvious to me that education is important to the welfare of those that are suffering from poverty.

Mimi your state is doing a great job with the programs they are implementing please give me some updates as time goes by and I will keep tabs on them myself. I respect your ideas on a minimum wage increase however I don't agree because of some of the points made earlier. If you wouldn't mind I'd like you to elaborate on your idea.

[Ayla ny]

Government funded daycare would probably help out a lot. Then again, I think this would help out the middle class as well. Imagine how much the average family would save on childcare costs if the government provided a partially-subsidized daycare service throughout the country.

Now, before you mention it, I do think that the child tax credit system should have a limit. The government shouldn't send the message that you ought to pump out more kids than you can afford. The limit on the child tax credit could be 2 children. Beyond two kids, families should have to deal with the consequences on their own terms.

amen! my particular county has pretty liberal income guidelines when it comes to qualifying for subsidized childcare (and very stringent guidelines for qualifying to be one of these subsidized childcare providers), but the cap doesn’t seem to go up as fast as the cost of living, and a cap that would include the lower middle class would help SO many people. myself included.

I only procreated enough to replace myself and my ex-husband (in his case with something much better) but I am a single mother of two and fall right smack-dab in the middle of that lower middle class category. I make too much money to qualify for any assistance whatsoever but find myself struggling to figure out what I am going to do with my 9 yr old all summer. thankfully, I have a very supportive family. a resource that a lot of people in my position, unfortunately, do not have.

as for what I think causes poverty… a lack of self-esteem and drive. these two things pretty much encompass everything that everyone has come up with, and are things that need to be instilled during childhood. so, we pretty much come full circle back to quality childcare being so very important.

[Nige]

The reason we have so much poverty, is because of the many piss poor paying employers. It is sad that in many countries they have to have a minimum wage forced upon them.

It is true that many people are probably better off on state benefits. So are the benefits too good or are salaries too poor?

[kcantankerous]

Nige I disagree with 90% of your statement, I'll explain why later.

[Fred46]

050921 TMF Poverty in the US is Caused by:

I think some people stay poor because there are government incentives to do so. Housing subsidization, welfare, food stamps, etc. And for each baby momma can squeeze out, the welfare check is that much bigger. Maybe even enough to buy a new color TV to watch Oprah and Judge Judy.

I think there is no question that many of the government programs designed to help the poor had the result of institutionalizing poverty rather than solving it. Daniel Patrick Moynahan was part of the Kennedy/Johnson brain trust that designed the War on Poverty. By the spring of 1967 he was speaking out about the disastrous effects those programs were having, especially in the black community, where rates of illegitimacy and dependency shot up immediately. I've heard that being raised by a single parent is the single most powerful indicator of whether or not a child will be raised in poverty. Maybe knogz should add that to his list of factors.

Due to the racial politics involved, it would take nearly 30 years for congress and the president to undertake meaningful reforms. It was long overdue, and the public was impatient for it. In fact, I remember reading that the only reason that Bill Clinton signed Newt Gingrich's welfare reform bill in 1996 was that Clinton's political advisor, Dick Morris, warned him that if he did not, he might lose in November. The Democratic Party has a powerful, deeply rooted interest in institutionalized poverty, which explains why nothing was done sooner, but they had to give some ground when public sentiment finally grew strong enough.

Mimi and Shadowtklr have indicated that the welfare picture has changed dramatically over the last nine years. I believe there is some kind of a lifetime cap on federal welfare benefits, and that the government is doing all it can to communicate to the dependent that "Your future is not welfare--your future is a job." That's a tough sell in a community where inter-generational welfare dependency has become the norm, and 70 percent of all children are born out of wedlock.

In addition to subsidized child care, I would like to see the following policies put in place: Everytime a woman approaches the government for benefits for herself and her child, she should be required to go on birth control pills until she no longer requires public support. The idea that an indigent person has some kind of legal or moral right to have ten or twelve children at taxpayers' expense is absurd on its face. I'm amazed the tax-paying public has tolerated that for as long as it has. If it weren't for the racial politics involved, this would never have happened.

Welfare applicants should also be required to disclose the identity of the father. I believe it is usual for welfare applicants to claim that they do not know who the father is. That is ridiculous, and with all the DNA technology we have today, we certainly out to be able to determine paternity. We currently have a bunch of irresponsible young men running around the hood calling themselves "Papa," and boasting about how many girls they have gotten pregnant. If we could hold them financially responsible for all their little bundles of joy it might wipe the smiles off their faces and teach them to wear a condom while they do their business. That would also reduce the rates of Sexually Transmitted Diseases, which are rife among the welfare underclass. Guess who pays when they have to see the doctor? That's right, the taxpayer.

I also think that welfare recipients should be required to undergo pregnancy and drug testing every month. If you catch a pregnancy early enough, you can end it with a pill. The taxpayers have a right to know if someone who is already taking their money is pregnant again. They also have a right to know if their money is being used to subsidize someone's crack habit. That is all too common among the welfare underclass. Children born to addicted mothers are likely to suffer from many, obvious disadvantages, with the taxpayer paying the tab for all of them at every stage.

There is no way we will ever end poverty unless we change the policies that perpetuate it. We have started down that road, and need to continue.

Fred46

[Red Jester]

I agree. But the government can't force someone to end a pregnancy. And if you cut benefits to a pregnant mother then its her kids that suffer for her irresponsiblity.

[isabeau]

ok let me get this straight. you are insinuating that most of the poor are lazy? well that makes me so pissed. its like saying all homeless are whinos. people are poor because they arent given the chance to better themselves, some are too proud to accept welfare. with the price of housing going up and up more and more how can the poor get ahead? raising the minimum wage wont do any good if the prices of housing continues to rise. some of the hardest working people i know are dirt poor, they have never asked for handouts and would rather work their fingers to the bone than do so. my own grandparents were so poor during the depression, they had to give a child away to be raised by relatives, however they never sat on their lazy asses , they farmed, he worked in the coal mines they did everything they could. how about the poor who live in the applachias? some of the hardest working people you will find. but they continue to be poor. please dont lump all the poor in one group. the poor have feelings, they have rights, they are human beings. i do know there are those who want to live off the government and have the big colored tv to watch oprah or whoever, but i believe that is the minority. i dont know if this post makes sense, since i'm not offering any sugggestions. i do know if i were first lady, my stand or whatever its called would be the homeless and the poor in our own country.

isabeau :(

o and ps i have volunteered at our local homeless shelter in the past, they have classes to train people on how to find jobs they just dont offer them food and shelter, they look out for the people and make them feel like human beings and try to help them get on with their lives.

[MrMacphisto]

*shrugs after reading Fred's post* Both parties have an interest in maintaining institutionalized poverty, because both parties are run by the richest of the rich. If they can get away with it, they will make sure that most of this country's wealth is hoarded by a small percentage of the population. Some might defend this situation as the natural process of capitalism, but plenty of First World nations other than America are much better at maintaining a decent wealth distribution. For example, the middle class is expanding in Canada, as opposed to the shrinking middle class here. Significant amounts of poverty are simply part of the American Way. Some might go from rags to riches, but nowadays, you're more likely to go from rags to less rags.

[New2u]

ok let me get this straight. you are insinuating that most of the poor are lazy? well that makes me so pissed. its like saying all homeless are whinos. people are poor because they arent given the chance to better themselves, some are too proud to accept welfare. with the price of housing going up and up more and more how can the poor get ahead? raising the minimum wage wont do any good if the prices of housing continues to rise. some of the hardest working people i know are dirt poor, they have never asked for handouts and would rather work their fingers to the bone than do so. my own grandparents were so poor during the depression, they had to give a child away to be raised by relatives, however they never sat on their lazy asses , they farmed, he worked in the coal mines they did everything they could. how about the poor who live in the applachias? some of the hardest working people you will find. but they continue to be poor. please dont lump all the poor in one group. the poor have feelings, they have rights, they are human beings. i do know there are those who want to live off the government and have the big colored tv to watch oprah or whoever, but i believe that is the minority. i dont know if this post makes sense, since i'm not offering any sugggestions. i do know if i were first lady, my stand or whatever its called would be the homeless and the poor in our own country.

isabeau :(

o and ps i have volunteered at our local homeless shelter in the past, they have classes to train people on how to find jobs they just dont offer them food and shelter, they look out for the people and make them feel like human beings and try to help them get on with their lives.

isabeau, don't get pissed at some of these conservatives. They usually make generalized "knee-jerk" comments without thought. They believe that being a conservative they are suppose to say that regardless of what the reality of the situation is. A conservative saying, "The poor are lazy and should get a job" is the same as some progressives saying, "World peace and love to all regardless of who's attacking us".

[drew70]

ok let me get this straight. you are insinuating that most of the poor are lazy? I'm curious. To whose post are you referring? I've read through every thread, and I'm still missing this insinuation. well that makes me so pissed. its like saying all homeless are whinos...Wouldn't it be more like saying most homeless are winos?

[isabeau]

uh drew at the very beginning of the thread???/ read up my friend. it states that 90% of the poor are lazy.

isabeau

[Ticklish9's]

1. Formal education at or lower than highschool level.

America, like most western societies, is fairly degree-heavy. According to the National Centre for Education Statistics, approximately 3 million secondary education diplomas are awared each year (from a high of 3.2 million in '77 and varying around that mark to 2.7 million in '03). In '88 1.5 million post-secondary diplomas (Bachelors and Assocates; excluding Masters and Doctorates) were awarded and the number has climbed steadily to over 2 million in '03.

Many of those that don't receive post-secondary degrees do so due to lack of access - schools full of violence and drug use with relatively no funding remain the norm in many inner-city areas, with no ready solution in sight, denying the opportunity to even approach a university; university costs continue to rise dramatically just about every year; the cost of living on a college campus likewise rises; and so on.

Traditional solutions (loans, scholarships, grants) are out of reach for those who most need it - with one or no parents, usually those with bad or no credit, and teachers who are just trying to survive and meet minimum, federally enforced (but not federally funded) grade point requirements, the opportunity to even be made aware of how to write a scholarship application, or where to send it, is practically nil in many cases, let alone a loan application.

Children are, indeed, being left behind.

2. Pregnancy before the age of 25 or so.

Again, this is generally problem only for those who can't afford a child before the age of 25 - and those people tend to be the same people who can barely afford FOOD before the age of 25.

As for the responsibility, I ask you - did YOU remain a virgin until you were married? If your response is birth control, I applaud you - although the government is currently reducing funding for birth control programs, reducing access to birth control, and attempting to spread the message that abstinence is the "right" way to avoid children. Given that I am one of only two people I know in my generation who are waiting until they get married before having intercourse, it's not a particularly effective message.

3. Marriage in which both parties make very little income.

Now you hit on the one real cause of being poor - lacking money. That is the one real, quantifiable difference between the poor and the middle and upper classes. Marriage between people with little income likely results from what is called "social stratification" - just how many truly wealthy people do you know? How many truly poor? How many middle class? Each class tends to comingle with people in similar economic straights, simply because that's the environment they're exposed to - people who work at McDonalds are friends with other people who work at McDonald's, because that's where they are.

4. Flat out laziness, absense of proactivity.

Basically very few people are poor because they're forced to be. I believe 95% or the poor are a product own laziness. And the other 5% fall in the first 3 catagories. There's a statistic which ticklechic gave me but I couldn't remember what the exact figures when I find it I'll post it. Furthermore, I know there are exceptions to the rule. But the ones who are emparvished now fall into one or more of the above catagories.

I see you've never spent a week in a Detroit ghetto watching people shoot each other for the money for drugs and food that will get them through the week. Not exactly conducive to going out and getting a 9-to-5, now, is it?

I take it you've also never been homeless. "Get a job!" people scream at the homeless, before walking into their office building - where they will promptly refuse to hire anyone who's homeless.

I take it you've also never had to wait several days for the heat to be turned back on because your single parent chose to let you eat instead of paying the gas bill, because you can't eat blankets but you can wear them. If you then went out and got a minimum wage job working hard physical labour, to supplement the two or three minimum wage jobs your single parent is already working, you don't really have much time to look into college - particularly since you can't even afford the 20$ for an SAT study guide, let alone the hundreds - even thousands - that middle and upper class students pay for SAT prep courses.

I take it you've also never had to chew carefully so you don't break off more of that chipped tooth, because you won't be able to get it fixed until you get promoted to a supervisory position and are eligible for benefits - hopefully within the next year or two, because it's starting to hurt.





Of course, what do I know? I'm pretty lazy.





Relevant links:

http://nces.ed.gov/ - National Centre for Education Statistics homepage.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/CollegeandFamily/P57654.asp - MSN News article on Tuition.

http://www.cepr.net/publications/debt_college_grads.htm - a report on the explosion of college debt in recent years, out of the Centre for for Economic and Policy Research.

http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/003704.html - "What it is to be poor," by writer John Scalzi. This is HIGHLY recommended reading. At the least, some of you will be able to laugh at those less fortunate than yourself.

[drew70]

uh drew at the very beginning of the thread???/ read up my friend. it states that 90% of the poor are lazy.

isabeauYou're right. I see it now. Thanks.

[Candlewicke]

The welfare programs Families with Dependent Children and Food Stamps lifts a family of three to only 65 percent of the poverty level, or less than $7600 per year for a family of three.

On average, states provide about $79 a month for each child.

Yeah, they're really livin' high on the hog.

:illogical

[isabeau]

You're right. I see it now. Thanks.

sorry to have to point that out, and it takes a real man to admit he is wrong.

isabeau

[Fred46]

I agree. But the government can't force someone to end a pregnancy. And if you cut benefits to a pregnant mother then its her kids that suffer for her irresponsiblity.

There are people in jail for cheating on their taxes. The government requires that people file honest returns and pay what they owe. The government punishes people for defrauding the taxpayers.

If an indigent woman gets pregnant and sticks the taxpayers with the bills, the taxpayers have a right to insist that she go on the pill. If she gets pregnant again anyway, that is a form of defrauding the taxpayers and she should be punished for it just as if she had cheated on a tax return. Regular pregnancy tests and the use of abortion pills would solve the problem for the welfare mothers, and the taxpayers.

You can't force a woman to get an abortion, but you can put her in jail for defrauding the taxpayers. Millions of sexually active women find ways not to get pregnant. Beyond the pill, there are over-the-counter products that will work very effectively when used properly. If they saw that jail was the alternative, I believe the indigent would quickly learn how to use them and taxpayers would end up saving a lot of money. By the way, it would also improve the welfare mother's odds of escaping from poverty herself, as well as preventing her from bringing more impoverished kids into the world.

Fred46

[isabeau]

isabeau, don't get pissed at some of these conservatives. They usually make generalized "knee-jerk" comments without thought. They believe that being a conservative they are suppose to say that regardless of what the reality of the situation is. A conservative saying, "The poor are lazy and should get a job" is the same as some progressives saying, "World peace and love to all regardless of who's attacking us".


thanks New statements like that make my blood boil, and i just have to respond. and you are right about the world peace and love thought. why do people think poor=lazy? its ridiculous to lump all in that category. and i'm sure there are plenty of rich lazy people. why doesnt anyone comment on them? especially those who inherited their money and choose to live off of that.

isabeau :ranty:

[TklrJoe]

Basically very few people are poor because they're forced to be. I believe 95% or the poor are a product own laziness.

I disagree with that. All the poor people I know are busting their asses working one, two, or three minimum wage jobs just to get by - and by "get by" I mean have a roof over their head. I don't consider them lazy.

I recommend the book "Nickel and Dimed" by Barbara Ehrenreich. She tried to live in America on minimum wage jobs and found it basically impossible.

[Ticklish9's]

If an indigent woman gets pregnant and sticks the taxpayers with the bills, the taxpayers have a right to insist that she go on the pill. If she gets pregnant again anyway, that is a form of defrauding the taxpayers and she should be punished for it just as if she had cheated on a tax return. Regular pregnancy tests and the use of abortion pills would solve the problem for the welfare mothers, and the taxpayers.



But then you've gotten into the sticky realm of legislating just when it's allowed to have a baby. You've set a criteria for having children (wealth) and prohibited certain people from reproducing. You've essentially undertaken a eugenics program. Once the government tells people they can't have children for one reason, it sets the tone to happen again, as there is then legal precedent.

It seems to me that a better solution than removing children is removing poverty.



If a socialized health care provides contraceptives, then a clear and concise system of rules regarding when social health care will also provide child care and support would encourage and require the use of said contraceptives, so you're on the right track.

As an aside: this doesn't apply to the United States, which strongly discourages contraceptives and refuses to apply a health care system with equal access irrespective of wealth.

[Mimi]

If an indigent woman gets pregnant and sticks the taxpayers with the bills, the taxpayers have a right to insist that she go on the pill. If she gets pregnant again anyway, that is a form of defrauding the taxpayers and she should be punished for it just as if she had cheated on a tax return.

You have to consider the fact that the pill is not 100% effective, though. Women can still get pregnant even while on the pill, and it would be outrageously unfair to punish women with fines and/or jail sentences because a medication they were forced to take failed to perform as expected. There is no "fool proof" solution in terms of contraceptives or medications.

[Ticklish9's]

Drew? Knogs? No response anymore?

Perhaps I should assume that our words have swayed you and you realize that maybe - just maybe - the poor among us are people, too?

Shall I go ahead and chalk this up as a victory for us commies? :cool2:

[isabeau]

lmao i aint no commie lol but i do believe we won

isabeau :cry1:

[Fred46]

But then you've gotten into the sticky realm of legislating just when it's allowed to have a baby. You've set a criteria for having children (wealth) and prohibited certain people from reproducing. You've essentially undertaken a eugenics program. Once the government tells people they can't have children for one reason, it sets the tone to happen again, as there is then legal precedent.

That’s a good point, and it is always well to beware of slippery slopes. For example, our government has set the precedent that it can deprive people of their breathing privileges when it chooses to do so. People convicted of especially heinous murders are subject to the death penalty. We hope that our government will not run wild and just start killing people for no reason, but as a society we have accepted the principle that the government can put people to death. Who knows where that might lead?

I hope you understand that I am in no way advocating telling people whether or not they can have children that they can support themselves. I am only saying that society has a right to protect itself from irresponsible people who have children they cannot support. It doesn’t take any great knowledge or skill to take a pill. People who are unable or unwilling even to do that are probably not capable of being decent parents, either.

I’ve been giving some thought to what you said about eugenics. I don’t feel that holding indigent people responsible for their reproductive behavior constitutes eugenics. However, I do feel that federal and state welfare policies that had the effect of encouraging indigent women to have numerous children out of wedlock at taxpayers’ expense amounts to an official dysgenics program.

As a society, we have encouraged those who were least fit among us to have the most children. Ticklish9 mentioned how tough things are in Detroit’s ghettos. Our welfare policies have contributed greatly toward turning America’s inner cities into unlivable hellholes. I heard Rush Limbaugh say today that the War on Poverty has, to date, spent over $6 trillion of the taxpayers’ money. I don’t know if that is the figure just for the federal government, or if it includes state expenditures. In either event, for that amount, there shouldn’t be a poor person left anywhere in America, and there wouldn’t be if the money had been spent intelligently.

It seems to me that a better solution than removing children is removing poverty.



If a socialized health care provides contraceptives, then a clear and concise system of rules regarding when social health care will also provide child care and support would encourage and require the use of said contraceptives, so you're on the right track.

As an aside: this doesn't apply to the United States, which strongly discourages contraceptives and refuses to apply a health care system with equal access irrespective of wealth.

The money that has been spent at all levels of government on the poor would have done much more good if it had been spent in concert with programs designed to stop the indigent from having illegitimate children at taxpayers’ expense. $6 trillion would pay for a lot of health care, child-care, drug rehabilitation, and other needs. Because we couldn’t do the one thing that was most necessary to fight poverty, all that money is just gone for nothing. Some individuals have benefited from anti-poverty programs, but the supply of new poor always swamps the available resources.

I understand that the American Religious Right has many irrational positions against birth control and abortion. I know that it will probably not be possible any time soon to adopt a policy that would require an indigent woman to take an abortion pill if she gets pregnant while accepting public benefits. I do hope, however, that something constructive can be done. I also believe that if society started punishing indigent women with jail time when they have illegitimate children while on public assistance, they would start remembering to take the pills, insert the IUDs, use foam, sponges, condoms, etc. When they have children that the taxpayers must support, it is theft, and theft is a crime. We haven’t helped anyone by treating it as anything else.

Fred46

[Fred46]

*shrugs after reading Fred's post* Both parties have an interest in maintaining institutionalized poverty, because both parties are run by the richest of the rich. If they can get away with it, they will make sure that most of this country's wealth is hoarded by a small percentage of the population. Some might defend this situation as the natural process of capitalism, but plenty of First World nations other than America are much better at maintaining a decent wealth distribution. For example, the middle class is expanding in Canada, as opposed to the shrinking middle class here. Significant amounts of poverty are simply part of the American Way. Some might go from rags to riches, but nowadays, you're more likely to go from rags to less rags.



You could certainly make a case that many Republicans favor cheap, illegal immigrant labor, and that they are happy to allow the taxpayers to subsidize the health care and other needs of the immigrants they exploit, and their families. You could also support an assertion that the Republican Party seems committed to gutting the American economy through its refusal to adopt reasonable measures to protect American businesses and workers from unfair foreign competition. You could accuse the Republican Party of 40 years of union busting through their role in maintaining immigration and trade policies that worked to eviscerate the American industrial base and, indirectly, the American labor movement.

I do not believe, however, that you can show that the Republican Party has a vested political interest in the so-called War on Poverty. The racial politics involved strictly favors the democrats.

Fred46

[Ticklish9's]

I don't have time to give you the response your post deserves, Fred, but I found it well thought out and reasonable and you raised some valid points. I'll be thinking it over while I'm out this weekend and hopefully this thread is still in use when I return on Sunday.

Cheers.

[drew70]

Drew? Knogs? No response anymore?

Perhaps I should assume that our words have swayed you and you realize that maybe - just maybe - the poor among us are people, too?

Shall I go ahead and chalk this up as a victory for us commies? :cool2:Perhaps I was misunderstood. I never implied the poor weren't people. I merely said that some...not all....but some....people are poor because there are government incentives to stay poor. Some poor people work very hard but lack whatever skills necessary to make decent money. Some people are addicted to substances that impede any lucrative career. I don't see it as an issue of political ideology, as in left vs right, but rather an issue of economics.

[MrPartickler]

Regardless of the scenario, some people always find away to "game" the system and take unfair advantage. I don't care if it's welfare or (not)paying taxes or free email (read:spammers) or getting free office supplies from work. Anytime there's some level of "good faith" required and there's room for play (i.e., gaining an unfair advantage), some will do it. They won't care who pays down the road or who it affects and will view their infractions as "relatively minor compared to ________."

The hope is that the <i>majority</i> do not abuse the system. Whether or not you believe that is the case probably depends on your level of cynicism personal experiences and, to some extent, political leanings. However, to put things into perspective. The <a href="http://www.ucowf.org/news.hwmc-08-17-2003.htm">United Council on Welfare Fraud</a> gives a conservative estimate that 1/3 of the expenditures for child care alone in 2001--about $11 billion supposedly--was paid in fraudulent and/or overpayment claims. That's fraud not only due both child care recipient and, equally as bad, to the child care providers. This issue is clearly complex as this is just one component of subsidization for the poor who have children. The estimated amount of fraud is certainly large; however it is still a long way from being the majority. Also, this suggests that a significant component of the abuse comes from people and services receiving the funds to <i>help</i> the poor.

Regarding the hypothesis that public assistance programs encourage irresponsible reproductive behavior, I can only say that I think this reasoning is flawed. The highest birthrates have consistently been in third-world, underdeveloped nations. (Sources for this information are all over.) More-developed nations and, by extension, wealthier people tend to have smaller families. I don't claim to understand the psychology behind this. I guess all I can say is that no matter what, people always <i>hope</i> for a better future and life for them and their children--regardless of what their current status is; money isn't everything to them and (so the saying goes) shouldn't be to anyone else. This situation sugguests that removing any financial "safety net" will likely not lead to a smaller birth rates among the poor. For certain, however, children will be adversely affected by such a change.

I think, for now the best stategy is to increase education--an approach that has many benefits for everyone including a significantly reduced likelihood of requiring public assistance of any kind.

[Ticklish9's]

Perhaps I was misunderstood. I never implied the poor weren't people. I merely said that some...not all....but some....people are poor because there are government incentives to stay poor. Some poor people work very hard but lack whatever skills necessary to make decent money. Some people are addicted to substances that impede any lucrative career. I don't see it as an issue of political ideology, as in left vs right, but rather an issue of economics.


The initial statement was that 95% of the poor are poor because they are lazy. That's hardly "some."

It is an issue of economics, but the economy is in many ways a reflection of the political environment and that makes it a political issue as well. Certain political stances tend to create an economic environment conducive to equitable distributions of wealth, and certain stances do not. Which is which is a matter open to debate by people much smarter than I, but I believe that history will see us Socialists take the day. It is in the interests of the entire species to see every human being prosper.

[Ticklish9's]

Regarding the hypothesis that public assistance programs encourage irresponsible reproductive behavior, I can only say that I think this reasoning is flawed. The highest birthrates have consistently been in third-world, underdeveloped nations. (Sources for this information are all over.) More-developed nations and, by extension, wealthier people tend to have smaller families. I don't claim to understand the psychology behind this. I guess all I can say is that no matter what, people always <i>hope</i> for a better future and life for them and their children--regardless of what their current status is; money isn't everything to them and (so the saying goes) shouldn't be to anyone else. This situation sugguests that removing any financial "safety net" will likely not lead to a smaller birth rates among the poor. For certain, however, children will be adversely affected by such a change.

I think, for now the best stategy is to increase education--an approach that has many benefits for everyone including a significantly reduced likelihood of requiring public assistance of any kind.


Instead of working out my own response, I'm just copying this one - it's better than anything I can come up with at 5 AM and I agree 100% with the statements contained therein.

[drew70]

The initial statement was that 95% of the poor are poor because they are lazy. That's hardly "some."No argument here, but that initial statement was not made by me, so I can't answer for it. It is in the interests of the entire species to see every human being prosper.I believe an iteration of this statement was included in Milagros' political test. I voted "strongly disagree" to this. I don't see how it helps those already prosperous for poor people to become prosperous. I'm not against them doing so, I just disagree with the postulate. I can see how it helps the poor, but not those who are already financially stable.

[jim66e]

It is in the interests of the entire species to see every human being prosper.

I'm not an expert, but this seems to go against the grain of most theories of development. All members of an animal species prospering doesn't help the animal species. The weak are culled out and the overall species is stronger for it. Making every member of a species prosper actually weakens the species because resources that could be used to advance the strongest and best members are now being used on the weakest. At least thats my understanding of how it works in the Animal Kingdom.

[MrMacphisto]

Good points, Jim66e... Maybe you guys are right after all... Screw welfare. Let's see how the market clears things. The rich will run things and exploit people either way, and no amount of government policy can change that. Besides, any economic policy that thins out our wretched species is good in my book.

[JoBelle]

Hurricanes.

Yeah, so I can't think of anything else for obvious reasons.

Takes the jobs, the houses, the banks, the cars, the food, the airconditioning in 100 degree weather, killed the sex drives, made people kill one another over bags of ice.

Yeah....that's livin' poverty if I've ever seen it.

Now, where's FEMA with my governmental backed credit card with a new $250K limit on it when it was only $2500.00 before the storms. All the government employees seem to have 'em!

Oh yeah...behind hurricanes...The US government causes poverty.

Jo, melt down happening after one month of holding it all together.

[Fred46]

050929 TMF Poverty Is Caused by:

... I don't see how it helps those already prosperous for poor people to become prosperous. I'm not against them doing so, I just disagree with the postulate. I can see how it helps the poor, but not those who are already financially stable.

I feel that it very much is in society's interests to lift the poor out of poverty. People who are underprivileged may feel resentment toward those who are better off, and that resentment may lead to various forms of aggression. Although racial issues are complicated, economic envy certainly played a part in the terrible riots of the 1960s, which cost our society an incalculable amount in money and human suffering. Beyond self-interest, I hope that most people would feel some compassion toward less fortunate people and want to see them do better.

People who are more financially stable are likely to be better neighbors, employees, etc., and they are likely to have fewer problems that society would have to solve. The problem with the War on Poverty is that it did more to create poverty than to end it. I do not question President Lyndon Johnson's motives, but I do feel that some people who have claimed to be on the side of the poor and on the side of racial justice actually had ulterior motives, and in fact did not want the War on Poverty to succeed.

The late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, one of the architects of the War on Poverty, wrote a book titled Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding in which he discussed what went wrong. It was copyrighted in 1969, and has an introductory blurb from someone named Aaron Wildavsky:

A recipe for violence: Promise a lot; deliver a little. Lead people to believe they will be much better off, but let there be no dramatic improvement. Try a variety of small programs, each interesting but marginal in impact and severely underfinanced. Avoid any attempted solution remotely comparable in size to the dimensions of the problem you are trying to solve. Have middle-class civil servants hire upper-class student radicals to use lower-class Negroes as a battering ram against the existing local political systems; then complain that people are going around disrupting things and chastise local politicians for not cooperating with those out to do them in. Get some poor people involved in local decision-making, only to discover that there is not enough at stake to be worth bothering about. Feel guilty about what has happened to black people; tell them you are surprised they have not revolted before; express shock and dismay when they follow your advice. Go in for a little force, just enough to anger, not enough to discourage. Feel guilty again; say you are surprised that worse has not happened. Alternate with a little suppression. Mix well, apply a match, and run. ...

The most obvious and most necessary step in fighting poverty is to prevent the poor from bringing more poor children into the world for the taxpayers to support. A woman must be brought out of poverty herself before she can responsibly parent anyone else. She needs either to marry someone who can support her and her kids, or to acquire skills that would let her support her family herself. As I mentioned in an earlier post, after the War on Poverty began, rates of dependency and illegitimacy in the black community immediately shot up, which is what prompted Moynihan to write his book.

Fred46

[Fred46]

050929b TMF Poverty Is Caused by:


…
Regarding the hypothesis that public assistance programs encourage irresponsible reproductive behavior, I can only say that I think this reasoning is flawed. The highest birthrates have consistently been in third-world, underdeveloped nations. (Sources for this information are all over.) More-developed nations and, by extension, wealthier people tend to have smaller families.

That is true, but it doesn't change the fact that after the War on Poverty began there was an immediate spike in out-of-wedlock births among poor black women. Whatever feelings of compassion or beliefs in social justice may have motivated some of those who devised the programs, when nothing was done to combat the illegitimacy, they were doomed to fail.

...This situation sugguests that removing any financial "safety net" will likely not lead to a smaller birth rates among the poor. For certain, however, children will be adversely affected by such a change.

Our national experience with welfare indicates that removing the safety net almost certainly would result in a sharp decline of birthrates among the poor. However, I do not advocate removing the safety net that protects the poor. I merely advocate that we treat welfare dependent women the same way most reasonable people would treat their own unmarried daughters if they became pregnant and turned to their parents for financial support.

If I had such a daughter, I would certainly support her and her child, but I would certainly expect that she would not come to me over and over again saying, "Daddy, I'm pregnant." For her own sake, for the sake of the child she already had, and for my sake, I would expect her consistently to use birth control until she was in a position responsibly to have more children. As a society, we should require that of the indigent. Not doing so has resulted in an incalculable amount of financial loss and human suffering.

I think, for now the best stategy is to increase education--an approach that has many benefits for everyone including a significantly reduced likelihood of requiring public assistance of any kind.

Yes, very true. Bear in mind that some of the poor are not highly educable, in some cases because they were brain damaged in utero because their mothers smoked crack, which they purchased, in part, with taxpayers' money. Even in such cases, whatever training people can use should be available to them, for their own sake and for the long term good of society.

Fred46

[MrPartickler]

That is true, but it doesn't change the fact that after the War on Poverty began there was an immediate spike in out-of-wedlock births among poor black women. Whatever feelings of compassion or beliefs in social justice may have motivated some of those who devised the programs, when nothing was done to combat the illegitimacy, they were doomed to fail.

Our national experience with welfare indicates that removing the safety net almost certainly would result in a sharp decline of birthrates among the poor.

You mention this repeatedly in your posts so I figured I'd respond to it directly. This is the view favored by conservatives; however (as is usually the case for sweeping statements heavily favored by either side of the political spectrum), it only tells part of the story, is only partly true, and there is no consensus on its validity.

I found this <a href="http://www.brook.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb05.htm">article</a> several weeks ago, but didn't have time to discuss it when I posted last. It's a brief read, but the highlights include:

1) Neither the conservative view (i.e., over-generous welfare policies) nor the liberal explanation (i.e., lack of marriageablility of Black men due to the lack of employment opportunities) can account for more than a few percentage points of the "spike" you mention. There has never been widespread agreement on <i>either</i> viewpoint.

Here's a quote from the page:

<i>One argument that appeals to conservatives is that of Charles Murray, who attributes the increase to overly generous federal welfare benefits. But as David Ellwood and Lawrence Summers have shown, welfare benefits could not have played a major role in the rise of out-of-wedlock births because benefits rose sharply in the 1960s and then fell in the 1970s and 1980s, when out-of-wedlock births rose most. A study by Robert Moffitt in 1992 also found that welfare benefits can account for only a small fraction of the rise in the out-of-wedlock birth ratio.</i>

2) The explanation they offer is "reproducive technology shock" due to the advent of freely-available contraceptives (and abortions) for unmarried people after 1970. In other words, in their terms, no more "shotgun marriages" were needed.

3) The spike of out-of-wedlock births you mentioned was, for Blacks, 24% in 1965 to 64% in 1990. That is a large number to be sure. It's almost a factor of 3 increase. What is interesting is that over the same time period for whites it rose from 3.1% to 18%--a factor of 6 increase, or twice the rate of increase attributed to Black women. I can draw no conclusions from these numbers; it's just an interesting observation for any who might like to define this as a purely racial phenomenon.


However, I do not advocate removing the safety net that protects the poor. I merely advocate that we treat welfare dependent women the same way most reasonable people would treat their own unmarried daughters if they became pregnant and turned to their parents for financial support.

If I had such a daughter, I would certainly support her and her child, but I would certainly expect that she would not come to me over and over again saying, "Daddy, I'm pregnant." For her own sake, for the sake of the child she already had, and for my sake, I would expect her consistently to use birth control until she was in a position responsibly to have more children. As a society, we should require that of the indigent. Not doing so has resulted in an incalculable amount of financial loss and human suffering.

I honestly don't think it's practical (short of living in some sort of Orwellian nightmare) to reasonably regulate who should and should not have children. What would be the determining factors? Who decides, just people with money or can the indigent help determine their own futures and the futures of their children? Are there any exceptions? How long must some one be below the decided "poverty line" before they're considered unfit to bear children? What if a woman gets pregnant, then becomes defined as technically "indigent," must she abort? What are the penalties for violations? Who enforces them and how are the children still protected? etc. etc.

In short, if saving taxpayer money is what you're after, my guess is there are bigger and no doubt easier fish to fry.

Bear in mind that some of the poor are not highly educable, in some cases because they were brain damaged in utero because their mothers smoked crack, which they purchased, in part, with taxpayers' money.
Jebus, dude. Do you actually <i>know</i> any so-called "indigent" people? :confused:

[drew70]

I feel that it very much is in society's interests to lift the poor out of poverty. People who are underprivileged may feel resentment toward those who are better off, and that resentment may lead to various forms of aggression. Although racial issues are complicated, economic envy certainly played a part in the terrible riots of the 1960s, which cost our society an incalculable amount in money and human suffering. Beyond self-interest, I hope that most people would feel some compassion toward less fortunate people and want to see them do better.

People who are more financially stable are likely to be better neighbors, employees, etc., and they are likely to have fewer problems that society would have to solve. The problem with the War on Poverty is that it did more to create poverty than to end it. I do not question President Lyndon Johnson's motives, but I do feel that some people who have claimed to be on the side of the poor and on the side of racial justice actually had ulterior motives, and in fact did not want the War on Poverty to succeed.

The late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, one of the architects of the War on Poverty, wrote a book titled Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding in which he discussed what went wrong. It was copyrighted in 1969, and has an introductory blurb from someone named Aaron Wildavsky:

A recipe for violence: Promise a lot; deliver a little. Lead people to believe they will be much better off, but let there be no dramatic improvement. Try a variety of small programs, each interesting but marginal in impact and severely underfinanced. Avoid any attempted solution remotely comparable in size to the dimensions of the problem you are trying to solve. Have middle-class civil servants hire upper-class student radicals to use lower-class Negroes as a battering ram against the existing local political systems; then complain that people are going around disrupting things and chastise local politicians for not cooperating with those out to do them in. Get some poor people involved in local decision-making, only to discover that there is not enough at stake to be worth bothering about. Feel guilty about what has happened to black people; tell them you are surprised they have not revolted before; express shock and dismay when they follow your advice. Go in for a little force, just enough to anger, not enough to discourage. Feel guilty again; say you are surprised that worse has not happened. Alternate with a little suppression. Mix well, apply a match, and run. ...

The most obvious and most necessary step in fighting poverty is to prevent the poor from bringing more poor children into the world for the taxpayers to support. A woman must be brought out of poverty herself before she can responsibly parent anyone else. She needs either to marry someone who can support her and her kids, or to acquire skills that would let her support her family herself. As I mentioned in an earlier post, after the War on Poverty began, rates of dependency and illegitimacy in the black community immediately shot up, which is what prompted Moynihan to write his book.

Fred46Very interesting and articulate. Yes, we seem to learn a lot from hindsight. I especially agree with your contension that poor people should not birth more poor children. I can't imagine wanting to bring a child into such a depressing state of existence. While it makes perfect sense, (perhaps even because it makes perfect sense) the ACLU and other so-called "human rights" organizations would fight such a referendum with their last dying breath, in their zeal to protect a poor person's permit to perpetuate poverty.

[MrMacphisto]

The most obvious and most necessary step in fighting poverty is to prevent the poor from bringing more poor children into the world for the taxpayers to support. A woman must be brought out of poverty herself before she can responsibly parent anyone else. She needs either to marry someone who can support her and her kids, or to acquire skills that would let her support her family herself. As I mentioned in an earlier post, after the War on Poverty began, rates of dependency and illegitimacy in the black community immediately shot up, which is what prompted Moynihan to write his book.

Fred46

Simple problem, simple solution... Sterilize the poor. Pregnancy won't be an issue then.

[Fred46]

050930 TMF Poverty Is Caused by:

...

1) Neither the conservative view (i.e., over-generous welfare policies) nor the liberal explanation (i.e., lack of marriageablility of Black men due to the lack of employment opportunities) can account for more than a few percentage points of the "spike" you mention. There has never been widespread agreement on <i>either</i> viewpoint. ...

2) The explanation they offer is "reproducive technology shock" due to the advent of freely-available contraceptives (and abortions) for unmarried people after 1970. In other words, in their terms, no more "shotgun marriages" were needed.

Thanks for that link, it is a very good article with some interesting ideas. I don't doubt that the pill and legalization of abortion, along with the sexual revolution of the Sixties, played roles in the illegitimacy rate in America. As you say, it is best not to oversimplify things. I would add, however, that many people observed that the War on Poverty ushered in dramatic changes in the family life of the black community.

I remember reading a book called Richard Nixon Reconsidered that described how President Richard Nixon, with the advise of Daniel Patrick Moynahan, proposed legislation that would have raised the payments to welfare recipients, and would have removed the incentives in the original legislation that encouraged black fathers to leave the household. Under Nixon's plan, fathers could have stayed without jeopardizing the family's welfare payments. For whatever reasons, Democrats in congress shot the plan down.

I noticed the article you linked to at the Brookings Institute was written in the fall of 1996, the very year that congress enacted the first serious welfare reform in over 30 years. There may not have been time yet to evaluate how the reforms effected illegitimacy. Right around that time I heard that in one state, I believe it was Wisconsin, the government changed their welfare law so that there would be no per-child increase in benefits for women who got pregnant again while on public assistance. The birth rate among welfare recipients dropped immediately. Mimi mentioned that Wisconsin was on the cutting edge of welfare reform. I have also heard that part of the Gingrich welfare reforms was a lifetime cap of four years of federal welfare benefits.



3) The spike of out-of-wedlock births you mentioned was, for Blacks, 24% in 1965 to 64% in 1990.

I would be interested to know what the rate was in 1967. My sense is that there was an immediate, sharp uptick in illegitimacy in the black community following the passage of the War on Poverty legislation, but I have no reference to cite. With all due respect to the Brookings Institute, the idea that the new welfare policies played only a marginal role in the increased welfare illegitimacy rates that immediately ensued stretches credulity to the breaking point.


I honestly don't think it's practical (short of living in some sort of Orwellian nightmare) to reasonably regulate who should and should not have children. What would be the determining factors? Who decides, just people with money or can the indigent help determine their own futures and the futures of their children? Are there any exceptions? How long must some one be below the decided "poverty line" before they're considered unfit to bear children? What if a woman gets pregnant, then becomes defined as technically "indigent," must she abort? What are the penalties for violations? Who enforces them and how are the children still protected? etc. etc.

The only determining factor I had in mind was acceptance of public assistance. What I visualize is a program where a welfare mom has to come in to get her check every month, and is given a month’s supply of birth control pills at the same time. Before she gets her money, she is tested for drugs and pregnancy. If she is pregnant, she is required to take an abortion pill to end the pregnancy. If someone became pregnant and refused to take an abortion pill, she should be prosecuted for defrauding the taxpayers. Regarding someone who is widowed or deserted by her husband while pregnant, I certainly would not advocate compelling her to have an abortion. I would, however, insist that she start on the pill after the baby was born until she no longer required public assistance.

I don’t think it’s Orwellian to require people who are taking your money because they can’t make it on their own to behave responsibly and not get pregnant again until they can pay for it themselves. It’s the War on Poverty that has been a nightmare, for black people more than anyone else.




Jebus, dude. Do you actually <i>know</i> any so-called "indigent" people? :confused:

The term "crack baby" has been around for years. It has been widely known for many years that there are serious drug problems among the welfare underclass in America. If that remark about brain damage was upsetting, I’m sorry. I was just trying to dramatize the utter foolishness and incalculable destructiveness of our nation’s failed War on Poverty.

Fred46

[Fred46]

050930b TMF Poverty Is Caused by:

Very interesting and articulate. Yes, we seem to learn a lot from hindsight. I especially agree with your contension that poor people should not birth more poor children. I can't imagine wanting to bring a child into such a depressing state of existence. While it makes perfect sense, (perhaps even because it makes perfect sense) the ACLU and other so-called "human rights" organizations would fight such a referendum with their last dying breath, in their zeal to protect a poor person's permit to perpetuate poverty.

At some point, hopefully very soon, we as a nation, will figure out that it hasn't served us well to listen to the ACLU, or other liberal groups. They have done a number on this country. Their policies on immigration, welfare, and feminism have caused devastating harm. Combined with Republican free trade, those policies just might kill the United States.

Liberal assaults on the cultural underpinnings of America have been relentless, as have been their efforts to undermine Americans' sense of pride and confidence in their country. There's a lot you could say about our nation's open borders, free trade, New World Order Republicans, but Democrats still take the Who's Hurt America Most award in a walk. They seem very pleased with themselves, and show no signs of letting up. We ought to be voting them out of all levels of government in droves. We certainly ought not have allowed an ACLU activist like Ruth Bader-Ginsberg to take a seat on the Supreme Court.

Fred46

[MrPartickler]

Thanks for that link, it is a very good article with some interesting ideas. I don't doubt that the pill and legalization of abortion, along with the sexual revolution of the Sixties, played roles in the illegitimacy rate in America. As you say, it is best not to oversimplify things. I would add, however, that many people observed that the War on Poverty ushered in dramatic changes in the family life of the black community.

I don't believe I'm oversimplifying things at all. On the contrary, I'm adding complexity by noting additional contributing factors proposed by other social scientists. Again, there is no consensus. The ones who seem most convinced of one viewpoint or another are the ones who have their own politics attached, and they've not bothered to objectively consider alternative viewpoints.
I remember reading a book called Richard Nixon Reconsidered that described how President Richard Nixon, with the advise of Daniel Patrick Moynahan, proposed legislation that would have raised the payments to welfare recipients, and would have removed the incentives in the original legislation that encouraged black fathers to leave the household. Under Nixon's plan, fathers could have stayed without jeopardizing the family's welfare payments. For whatever reasons, Democrats in congress shot the plan down.
It is the social scientist named Charles Murray who is the biggest proponent of Moynahan's view. The Brookings Institure cites his study and this <a href="http://www.children.smartlibrary.org/NewInterface/segment.cfm?segment=1783">site</a> argues (again) for that POV. He basically says: "if we measure things in the right way, you'll see the welfare programs caused increased illegitimacy rates in the Black community." (Of course, he himself has never measured things in the "right way.") And the closest thing to a "spike" on his most conclusive plot is, again, an upwward slope/change of a few percentage points around the year of interest: 1967.
I noticed the article you linked to at the Brookings Institute was written in the fall of 1996, the very year that congress enacted the first serious welfare reform in over 30 years. There may not have been time yet to evaluate how the reforms effected illegitimacy.
Actually this <a href="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/Test031501b.cfm">Heritage Foundation article</a> (a conservative site, correct?) is already making claims of reductions in in the illegitimacy rates due to that reform. Although they cite the trend reversal(s) as beginning in 1994. If the claims are true (and as yor said it's probably still too soon to *really* tell) it's still only a few percentage points--as the Brookings site stated. However, playing the conservatives advocate, one could argue the reform hasn't gone far enough to make a more significant impact.
Right around that time I heard that in one state, I believe it was Wisconsin, the government changed their welfare law so that there would be no per-child increase in benefits for women who got pregnant again while on public assistance. The birth rate among welfare recipients dropped immediately. Mimi mentioned that Wisconsin was on the cutting edge of welfare reform. I have also heard that part of the Gingrich welfare reforms was a lifetime cap of four years of federal welfare benefits.
The Wisconsin programs seem impressive to me as well. No doubt they are a step in the right direction, but they are aimed primarily at spending efficiency (of services), self-sufficiency, and reducing overall caseloads. The do that well. Concerning illegitimacy rates, however, they admittedly do little:
Here's a quote from this very informative (and complimentary) <a href="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/PR030497.cfm">site</a>

<i>
There is, however, one very important shortcoming to Wisconsin's welfare achievement: The current reforms have not cut the state's illegitimate birth rate. Illegitimacy does much more harm to children's development than does welfare dependency. The ultimate goal of reform must be not only to reduce dependency but to rebuild marriage. One can only hope that over the next decade, Wisconsin's reformers will tackle the problem of out-of-wedlock births with the ingenuity and diligence they have already applied to the question of dependence.
</i>

I would be interested to know what the rate was in 1967. My sense is that there was an immediate, sharp uptick in illegitimacy in the black community following the passage of the War on Poverty legislation, but I have no reference to cite. With all due respect to the Brookings Institute, the idea that the new welfare policies played only a marginal role in the increased welfare illegitimacy rates that immediately ensued stretches credulity to the breaking point.
Not even Murray seems as convinced as you are of this cause-effect relationship. And again, no dramatic increase can be seen in the data--even Murray's data--I've found. The WI welfare program seems very good, but it apparently doesn't address this concern at all. There seems an absense of real evidence to support the War On Poverty-as-sole-"smoking gun" theory.

The only determining factor I had in mind was acceptance of public assistance. What I visualize is a program where a welfare mom has to come in to get her check every month, and is given a month’s supply of birth control pills at the same time. Before she gets her money, she is tested for drugs and pregnancy. If she is pregnant, she is required to take an abortion pill to end the pregnancy. If someone became pregnant and refused to take an abortion pill, she should be prosecuted for defrauding the taxpayers. Regarding someone who is widowed or deserted by her husband while pregnant, I certainly would not advocate compelling her to have an abortion. I would, however, insist that she start on the pill after the baby was born until she no longer required public assistance.
You should note that in my readings on the WI welfare reforms. There was an incentive (can't recall if it was Federal or State) to reduce illegitimacy rates <i>without</i> a corresponding rise in abortion rates. You clearly support taking a more aggressive (and more controversial) stance on that. Promoting the use of contraceptives is probably a no-brainer. However, I can't see how prosecuting poor pregnant mothers could punish anyone more than her unborn child.
It’s the War on Poverty that has been a nightmare, for black people more than anyone else.

According to the first site I mentioned (on Charles Murray), most reasearches agree on the following:

<i>According to Murray, since Bane and Ellwood's seminal 1983 study, researchers generally find that differences in the dollar amount of welfare benefits do have a small impact on the number of illegitimate births. However, no consensus has been reached as to the magnitude of that impact. At the same time, most studies conclude that the effect of welfare on childbearing behavior is larger among whites than blacks....</i>

Given your comments above, that last statement is very interesting indeed. I personally had never heard it before locating that reference.

The term "crack baby" has been around for years. It has been widely known for many years that there are serious drug problems among the welfare underclass in America.
No real arguments here. It's just a little disconcerting if someone responds to a statement about increasing education with these comments. It kinda looks like an attempt to rationalize doing nothing.

[MrMacphisto]

At some point, hopefully very soon, we as a nation, will figure out that it hasn't served us well to listen to the ACLU, or other liberal groups. They have done a number on this country. Their policies on immigration, welfare, and feminism have caused devastating harm. Combined with Republican free trade, those policies just might kill the United States.

It's funny you should mention free trade. That's one of the few conservative initiatives I agree with. Comparative advantage must be promoted to increase American prosperity. Anyway, good luck with endless military spending. If you don't want to raise taxes, but you still want to spend more on the military, you're gonna have to cut something to avoid driving the deficit up further. I guess this means our social programs are on the way out. Granted, since the poor are kind of screwed whether we have welfare or not, we might as well keep politicians from wasting tax money on inefficient and ineffective programs....

Liberal assaults on the cultural underpinnings of America have been relentless, as have been their efforts to undermine Americans' sense of pride and confidence in their country. There's a lot you could say about our nation's open borders, free trade, New World Order Republicans, but Democrats still take the Who's Hurt America Most award in a walk. They seem very pleased with themselves, and show no signs of letting up. We ought to be voting them out of all levels of government in droves. We certainly ought not have allowed an ACLU activist like Ruth Bader-Ginsberg to take a seat on the Supreme Court.

Fred46

Hey, I'm working on it, but it's going to take some time. I only ask that you guys get ready to take on the full responsibility of running the country at all levels. You might find that having a rival party actually spreads the burden of bureaucracy some.

[Ticklish9's]

No argument here, but that initial statement was not made by me, so I can't answer for it.

Fair enough. :)

I believe an iteration of this statement was included in Milagros' political test. I voted "strongly disagree" to this. I don't see how it helps those already prosperous for poor people to become prosperous. I'm not against them doing so, I just disagree with the postulate. I can see how it helps the poor, but not those who are already financially stable.

Long term, my friend, long term! A stable and healthy society requires stable and healthy people! In purely capitalist terms, the poor are the greatest force for social upheaval in the quest for change. Logically, the "haves" are those who wish to keep things as they are, for they "have;" the "have-nots" are those who seek to "have" and thus change things.

It's been proven that a middle class CAN exist - people can be content with a certain minimum degree of "having". I get by just fine on about 400$ every two weeks, and that includes financing trips out of town every weekend (it DOES require some scrimping, but I have no complaints). If we set that as the minimum standard, how hard would it be for a simple tax supplement from corporations or wealthy estates to ensure a certain minimum supply credit - good towards housing, food, and so forth - of, say, 150$ a month investment, coupled with work-placement programs and at least partly socialized health care? Consider it an investment in the infrastructure of maintaining a healthy society (because believe you me, I am a rabble rouser of the worst sort and when I get upset over social conditions I BITCH and I dig at it as much as I can, as often as I can, and I bring others with me).

It's a long term investment in the conservation of the status-quo.

(This is all how I'd explain it capitalistically, of course. I see it personally, as a Socialist, as a combination of noblesse oblige and social ethics - denying 300 people basic food so that you can have a second summer home smacks of murder, to my conscience).

[Ticklish9's]

050930b TMF Poverty Is Caused by:



At some point, hopefully very soon, we as a nation, will figure out that it hasn't served us well to listen to the ACLU, or other liberal groups. They have done a number on this country. Their policies on immigration, welfare, and feminism have caused devastating harm. Combined with Republican free trade, those policies just might kill the United States.

So you disagree with the ACLU's stand that people should not be able to be snatched off an airplane at O'Hare airport and rot in jail for three years without ever being charged, in direct contravention of the Bill of Rights? Or their stand that the police can NOT break into your home at all hours of the day or night just to "check" and make sure you're not doing anything wrong?

Liberal assaults on the cultural underpinnings of America have been relentless, as have been their efforts to undermine Americans' sense of pride and confidence in their country.



I'm not denying this at all. I'm openly at war with the notion of nationalism - can't have a world war without it, after all. A nation-state is nothing more than a glorified tribe.

I, personally, am a human being, first and foremost - just like every single other thinking being on this planet. I hold these truths to be self-evident - that ALL men are created equal...

Not just Americans. Not by a long shot.

I will openly continue to fight against the idea of being "proud" of your country, when there is instead the much more productive, intelligent, and reasonable option of being proud of our incredible, amazing, and awe-inspiring species.

[Fred46]

051005 TMF Poverty in the US is Caused by:

I'm not an expert, but this seems to go against the grain of most theories of development. All members of an animal species prospering doesn't help the animal species. The weak are culled out and the overall species is stronger for it. Making every member of a species prosper actually weakens the species because resources that could be used to advance the strongest and best members are now being used on the weakest. At least thats my understanding of how it works in the Animal Kingdom.

A number of years ago, I saw a man named William Shockley, the co-inventor of the transistor, appear on a PBS program called Tony Brown's Journal, a program that addressed issues in the black community. I haven't seen that show in a long time, and assume it has been cancelled. Shockley wanted to address the host and his audience about how welfare has adversely effected the American black community through its dysgenic impact. People who were, evolutionarily speaking, least fit to reproduce were being enabled to have large numbers of children. He believed that this was resulting in generations of black youth who were, on the whole, less able to acquire skills, and more inclined toward aggression and criminality than would otherwise be the case. He said this was causing great harm to society, with the black community suffering the most.

Tony Brown was a very well-spoken, educated, dignified black man whose program was probably intended, primarily, to be of assistance to upwardly mobile American blacks. He did well to have Shockley on his program, although Brown seemed angered by Shockley's message.

As Man has become more civilized and technologically sophisticated, he has been able, to some extent, to counter natural processes. People who, in centuries past, might not even have survived due to some disadvantage, are now able to survive and reproduce due to advances in medical science and social programs that assist the unfortunate.

As a society, we should be proud of what we have accomplished in gaining power over nature, but we should also take care. President Kennedy famously said, "...We will bear any burden, pay any price..." The fact is that no individual, and no country, is so infinitely strong that it literally can bear "any" burden. Somewhere there is a limit beyond which the burden can no longer be born, and which will cause the individual or society in question to collapse under the strain. If we ever reach that point in America, the result would be mass starvation and horrendous violence that would make life in the inner cities today look like paradise by comparison. For our sake and for theirs, we should use our wits to make sure we never approach that point.

We should never forget our moral obligations to the less fortunate. However, we also should not forget our moral obligations to ourselves and our offspring. We, and they, should live under the most desirable circumstances that our ingenuity and efforts can devise. As I said in a previous post, I heard Rush Limbaugh recently say that our govermnent has spent $6 trillion in the War on Poverty over the last 40 years, and I don't know whether that includes state and local expenditures, or is just limited to the federal government. That would be enough money to wipe out nearly our entire national debt today, a debt which limits our government’s capabilities and which poses a lingering threat of inflation.

Fighting poverty should be a process simultaneously of pulling up, and pushing down. Society should push down to restrain irresponsible, anti-social behavior among the indigent such as having more kids while on public assistance, or spending tax dollars on drugs, etc. At the same time we should pull up with education, training, jobs, drug rehabilitation, child-care, health care, rent subsidies, food stamps, financial support, etc. to reward those who cooperate with the system. As I said in an earlier post, after a $6 trillion War on Poverty there shouldn't be a poor person left anywhere in America, and if the money had been spent wisely, there wouldn't be. Instead, we have spent the money in a way that virtually guaranteed that we would not solve the problem of poverty.

Fred46

[Fred46]

So you disagree with the ACLU's stand that people should not be able to be snatched off an airplane at O'Hare airport and rot in jail for three years without ever being charged, in direct contravention of the Bill of Rights? Or their stand that the police can NOT break into your home at all hours of the day or night just to "check" and make sure you're not doing anything wrong?



I'm not denying this at all. I'm openly at war with the notion of nationalism - can't have a world war without it, after all. A nation-state is nothing more than a glorified tribe.

I, personally, am a human being, first and foremost - just like every single other thinking being on this planet. I hold these truths to be self-evident - that ALL men are created equal...

Not just Americans. Not by a long shot.

I will openly continue to fight against the idea of being "proud" of your country, when there is instead the much more productive, intelligent, and reasonable option of being proud of our incredible, amazing, and awe-inspiring species.

That's very well put, Ticklish9's.

Fred46

[jim66e]

So you disagree with the ACLU's stand that people should not be able to be snatched off an airplane at O'Hare airport and rot in jail for three years without ever being charged, in direct contravention of the Bill of Rights? Or their stand that the police can NOT break into your home at all hours of the day or night just to "check" and make sure you're not doing anything wrong?



I'm not denying this at all. I'm openly at war with the notion of nationalism - can't have a world war without it, after all. A nation-state is nothing more than a glorified tribe.

I, personally, am a human being, first and foremost - just like every single other thinking being on this planet. I hold these truths to be self-evident - that ALL men are created equal...

Not just Americans. Not by a long shot.

I will openly continue to fight against the idea of being "proud" of your country, when there is instead the much more productive, intelligent, and reasonable option of being proud of our incredible, amazing, and awe-inspiring species.

I think that while you can't have a world war without nationalism, a strong case can be made that you can't have democracy without nationalism as well.

[asutickler]

What ever happened to the idea of social Darwinism? I can see helping the relatively few people who truly can't help themselves... But I really don't buy into the idea of subsidizing people who are lazy or screw up their own lives through poor decision-making. :illogical

[Fred46]

051006 TMF Poverty in the US Is Caused by:

:wavingguy

I don't believe I'm oversimplifying things at all. On the contrary, I'm adding complexity by noting additional contributing factors proposed by other social scientists. Again, there is no consensus. The ones who seem most convinced of one viewpoint or another are the ones who have their own politics attached, and they've not bothered to objectively consider alternative viewpoints.

You seem to misunderstand me. I didn't mean to say that you were oversimplifying; I was agreeing with your statement that people on either end of the political spectrum might tend to focus only on evidence that supports their preconceptions, and thus “only tell part of the story.” You made a fine post with a good supporting link and I meant only to thank and compliment you for it.


Not even Murray seems as convinced as you are of this cause-effect relationship. And again, no dramatic increase can be seen in the data--even Murray's data--I've found. The WI welfare program seems very good, but it apparently doesn't address this concern at all. There seems an absense of real evidence to support the War On Poverty-as-sole-"smoking gun" theory.



I beg to differ. Looking at the graph in the undated Smart Library article that compares legitimate and illegitimate birth rates among American blacks and levels of welfare payments between 1940 and 1990, it does look like there is a definite spike upward in illegitimate births beginning right at 1965, the year I consider to be the watershed in the so-called War on Poverty. Taking a longer view, it seems that the rate of illegitimacy in the black community in America went from about 4.5 per 1,000 blacks in 1940 to 7.5 in 1965, to 10 in 1970, and to 15 in 1990. From looking at this graph it certainly appears that the interval 1965-1970 had a much faster rate of increase than any previous 5-year period, and at least as fast as any subsequent 5-year period.

If I am reading that graph correctly, there seemed to be a noticeable climb in black illegitimacy starting around 1950, and plateauing around 1955. Although increases in welfare payments do not seem perfectly to coincide with increases in illegitimacy, I notice that from a starting point of 300 inflation-adjusted dollars in 1940, benefits had climbed to about $450 by 1955, an increase of 50%. By 1965, benefits had climbed still further, to about $650, an inflation-adjusted increase of another 44%. By 1970, payments had increased almost to $1,000, an increase of over 50%. I am not making a Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc argument, claiming that because one thing happened after another thing, that it must have happened because of that previous thing. I just mean that the pattern shown in the Smart Library graph is consistent with what you would expect if the War on Poverty had adversely affected black illegitimacy rates to a significant degree.

Looking only at the increases in black illegitimacy during the 1950s, it is hard to see how the Shotgun Marriage theory articulated by the Brookings Institution would apply. If I am not mistaken, The Pill had not been invented yet, and abortion became legal only in 1973. The most obvious explanation seems to be that the increases in welfare benefits which accrued between 1940 and 1955 pulled the illegitimacy rate upward. I suspect that further increases in welfare benefits played the principal role in the spike in illegitimate births that occurred between 1965-1970, although I believe there were aspects of the War on Poverty which penalized welfare families where the father lived at home, thus compounding the effect of the rising benefits.

The graph in the March 2001 Heritage Foundation article comparing American black and white illegitimacy rates between 1940 and 1990 also seems to show that while a gradual upward trend was underway in the black community between 1940 and 1965, when the rate climbed from about 13% to 24%, there was a sharp spike in the rate starting right at 1965 and shooting up to about 44% by about 1972—again, just as you would expect if the War on Poverty were adversely effecting those illegitimacy rates. This graph by no means perfectly agrees with the Smart Library graph, but they both seem to show a sharp upturn in black illegitimacy rates starting right at 1965.

The Shotgun Wedding theory seems a bit contrived to me, even when considering only the increases in illegitimacy occurring after 1965. The availability of The Pill and abortion should have worked to reduce, not increase, illegitimacy.

Clearly, however, there was a cultural revolution in the 60s that included rebellion against society's sexual norms. The Brookings Institution article mentioned this, but seemed to downplay it. They did note that in the late 60s and afterward there began to be less stigma attached to single motherhood, which might have contributed to the increase in illegitimacy.

The 60s was also the time when there was the most dramatic increase in rebellion and militancy in the black community. We went from Martin Luther King, Jr., to Huey Newton and Stokely Carmichael at that time. Maybe there is some connection there to the rise in illegitimacy among blacks. I don't remember seeing that addressed in any of the articles you linked, though. It's just a thought.

From another graph in the Heritage Foundation article dated March 2001, it seems to me that welfare dependency rates were fairly level between 1950 and 1957, but began a gradual climb after that until around 1965 when there was a clear spike upward that continued until 1975. That appears to be consistent with what you would expect if you blame the War on Poverty for an increase in welfare dependency. Again, this is not a Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc argument, I’m not saying it proves anything, just that it is consistent with that supposition. There was another sharp spike in the early 1990s, followed by a sharp drop beginning around 1995, when Newt Gingrich began implementing his Contract with America.

Comparing the two graphs, one indicating rates of illegitimacy among American blacks between the years 1940 and 1990, the other showing rates of welfare dependency among Americans of all races between 1950 and 2000, it seems that both of them show a pronounced spike upward right at 1965, the War on Poverty’s watershed year. The graphs do not perfectly match up by any means, but they do have that in common.

From the Heritage Foundation article of March 1997, I was surprised to learn, as you said in your post, that while rates of welfare dependency fell sharply in Wisconsin in the 1990s, rates of illegitimacy remained high. My expectation was that if people were removed from the welfare rolls their fertility rate, whether in or out of wedlock, would plummet. I wonder if the lingeringly high illegitimacy rate could be partly a function of dropping fertility rates? It’s hard to imagine women who have to work for a living continuing to have more illegitimate children.

You should note that in my readings on the WI welfare reforms. There was an incentive (can't recall if it was Federal or State) to reduce illegitimacy rates <i>without</i> a corresponding rise in abortion rates. You clearly support taking a more aggressive (and more controversial) stance on that. Promoting the use of contraceptives is probably a no-brainer. However, I can't see how prosecuting poor pregnant mothers could punish anyone more than her unborn child.

Yes, that is true. Any sanctions that you apply to a welfare mother will impact her children, born or unborn. However, I noticed from the Heritage Foundation articles you linked that Wisconsin did apply financial sanctions to welfare recipients who failed to comply with their policies. In the end, however, far more children benefited than were harmed, as welfare recipients were deterred from doing the things that carried sanctions.

Even if you conclude that welfare policies did not substantially influence the increase in out-of-wedlock births among American blacks since 1945, it does not change the fact that the public has a vital interest in deterring such irresponsible behavior among people, of all races, who accept public assistance. The Heritage Foundation articles noted the sharply higher rates of welfare dependency and criminality, and reduced educational and job performance among people who were raised in welfare dependent families, especially single parent families.

According to the first site I mentioned (on Charles Murray), most reasearches agree on the following:

<i>According to Murray, since Bane and Ellwood's seminal 1983 study, researchers generally find that differences in the dollar amount of welfare benefits do have a small impact on the number of illegitimate births. However, no consensus has been reached as to the magnitude of that impact. At the same time, most studies conclude that the effect of welfare on childbearing behavior is larger among whites than blacks....</i>

Given your comments above, that last statement is very interesting indeed. I personally had never heard it before locating that reference.

I remember listening to a TV talk show some years ago in which the guest said that although most welfare recipients in America are white, the problem of intergenerational welfare dependency is almost exclusively a problem among the black community. Whatever the case may be, I believe that welfare policy should be applied identically to black and white, and should consider the long-term best interests of the mothers, children, and taxpayers. We should not let racial politics of any sort cloud the issues.




No real arguments here. It's just a little disconcerting if someone responds to a statement about increasing education with these comments. It kinda looks like an attempt to rationalize doing nothing.

I feel just the opposite, however that remark may have sounded. I feel that if people have the desire and the ability, it is probably in society’s long-term interest to help them gain valuable job skills. Hopefully, they will become taxpayers one day. The more and better skills they have, the more they are likely to earn eventually, and to contribute to society in taxes.

I noticed that one of the Heritage Foundation links you gave said that education and training seemed to help the indigent very little, and that it was best simply to put the poor into jobs for which they can qualify now. I was very surprised at that. I hope we can figure out which welfare recipients might benefit most from education or job training, and provide it to them. I suspect that part of the problem may be that we were directing those educational programs indiscriminately at the poor, including those unable or unwilling to make a serious effort to benefit from them. It is highly counter intuitive to say that education and job training are not very valuable to people at every level of society.

Fred46

[MrMacphisto]

What ever happened to the idea of social Darwinism? I can see helping the relatively few people who truly can't help themselves... But I really don't buy into the idea of subsidizing people who are lazy or screw up their own lives through poor decision-making. :illogical

Well, wait a few years... The time is right for Social Darwinism, and now that Bush finds himself in a situation where he either has to cut the military budget or social programs, he's going to cut the latter. Once social programs slowly exit the picture, you'll see plenty of Social Darwinism. You'll also see a rise in crime, so I highly suggest buying a firearm or two (if you haven't already).

[Fred46]

Simple problem, simple solution... Sterilize the poor. Pregnancy won't be an issue then.

I know you are being facetious, but I do think it would be an act of mercy to prevent those of the indigent who have proven unable or unwilling to overcome their drug habits from having more kids. Drugged out people tend to be less reliable at almost everything, including taking birth control pills. Certainly, they can't be relied on to take good care of their babies before or after birth.

A few years ago, I heard of an organization called KRACC, Kids Requiring a Caring Community. Their idea was to offer cash payments to drug addicts who would agree to be sterilized. If I remember correctly, the founder of the group was a white woman who had married a black man and saw too much in terms of children suffering because their mothers smoked crack.

Some people reflexively dismissed her idea as Hitlerian, but I don't think it is a valid comparison, since the woman was concerned only with sterilizing criminals whose high-risk behavior put their children, and ultimately the community, in danger. I haven't heard anything about that group in several years.

Short of sterilization, I have heard of a product called Norplant that effectively prevents pregnancy and does not require anyone to remember to take a pill every day. That would solve the problem as far as preventing irresponsible people on welfare from further burdening taxpayers, but would also keep open the hope that a welfare recipient would get her life together at some point and be in a position to have more kids.

Fred46

[MrMacphisto]

Who said I was being facetious? Your idea actually would work. Granted, we'd definitely have a negative reputation globally as a result of such a policy, but at this point, I don't think that matters. We've already destroyed so much of our credibility that maybe reputation isn't really an issue anymore.

It all comes down to this.... We have so many poor immigrants entering our country that, even if we sterilized them, we'd still have an endless supply of them coming here to do work that no one else wants to do. Our borders are simply too large to prevent illegal Mexicans from getting here, so we might as well control their growth while they're here, since we can't do it when they're outside of our country.

[Fred46]

That's a good post. You certainly do think outside the box! :upsidedow

Fred46

[Jimblast]

Actually, President Clinton instituted the Work Emplyment Program (WEP) or Welfare-To-Work program (as it was also called) which was designed to create subsidized employment for people who were on long term welfare. The program earmarked approximately $150 Million to states, with an emphasis on fathers in particular, to help them get jobs so they could support their families, and meet their child support obligations.

As a result, in 1997, welfare rolls were at their lowest rates in 30 years having put to work 5.5 million welfare recipients out of 14 million enrolled prior to the program. The fix looked good for a while, because people were now being forced to work. But the Program raised new concerns.

The problem as it existed then and now is that minimum wage increases at a rate inconsistent with the fast moving cost of living, and for most welfare recipients, it literally doesn't "Pay" to work for the wages being offered. Single parents must first find facilities to care for their children while they're at work. The cost is so prohibitive to their paychecks at the end of the week, that there isn't enough left to pay utilities, bus fare, food, rent, and other miscellaneous expenses that are needed to adequately care for their families. Working a full time job means that welfare is no longer an option, so the question of working has to be balanced in a matter of dollars and cents. If you got paid more money to stay home than you did working a 40 hour a week job, and you could stay with your children, what would you do?

Citing laziness as THE problem for welfare, rather than A problem is an overly simplistic view of the indigent, and welfare system in America. The answer does not lie in increasing welfare benefits, but more likely lies in increasing wages and creating sweeping changes in job re-eduction programs nationwide in order to give incentive to able-bodied welfare recipients to get jobs and keep them.

Actually, congress started that legislation. Clinton was against it. Poverty is caused by many things, one of which is our current welfare system. We need to do a better job of getting the competent and able bodied back to work. There are whole generations of welfare families.

[New2u]

Actually, congress started that legislation. Clinton was against it. Poverty is caused by many things, one of which is our current welfare system. We need to do a better job of getting the competent and able bodied back to work. There are whole generations of welfare families.

Jim, not true. Clinton was for it.

[drew70]

Jim, not true. Clinton was for it.New, I think if you check back, you'll find that Clinton was against it.

[Cosmo_ac]

i'd argue that poverty is caused by the increase in costs of living, tuition, eeverything else, and the lack of increase of general wages. There was a time when a single mother could work a minimum wage job and still keep her head above water. I'd argue that time has been disapearing for a while.

[CaptainQuantum]

I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this, but I think its because the minimum wage hasn't come close to keeping up with the standard of living. I remember listening to this radio talk show host in Chicago saying that his dad paid a mortgage on a house making the minimum wage at that time. I don't remmeber how many years ago that was, but can you imagine how much less poverty we would have if people working minimum wage could afford to buy a house??

[asutickler]

I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this, but I think its because the minimum wage hasn't come close to keeping up with the standard of living. I remember listening to this radio talk show host in Chicago saying that his dad paid a mortgage on a house making the minimum wage at that time. I don't remmeber how many years ago that was, but can you imagine how much less poverty we would have if people working minimum wage could afford to buy a house??


The minimum wage is virtually useless... If you raise it to any meaningful level you simply drive up costs for employers, which in turn creates inflation.

Most non-rural minimum wage jobs in America are held by high school students and illegal immigrants anyway... And people in rural areas have a much lower cost of living.

[New2u]

The minimum wage is virtually useless... If you raise it to any meaningful level you simply drive up costs for employers, which in turn creates inflation.

Most non-rural minimum wage jobs in America are held by high school students and illegal immigrants anyway... And people in rural areas have a much lower cost of living.

asu, increasing the minimum wage does not elevate inflation, oil, energy costs and federal price controls do.

[asutickler]

asu, increasing the minimum wage does not elevate inflation, oil, energy costs and federal price controls do.


...

Are you kidding me? Anything that increases production costs will increase the price of created products. That's what inflation IS.

[MrMacphisto]

I think what New meant to say is that things like energy costs affect prices much more than the minimum wage does.

[asutickler]

I think what New meant to say is that things like energy costs affect prices much more than the minimum wage does.


It depends on the product or industry that you're talking about...

[MrMacphisto]

True, asu, but you said yourself that "Most non-rural minimum wage jobs in America are held by high school students and illegal immigrants anyway... "

Considering this, then it would make sense that these industries that typically pay minimum wage would just start hiring illegal immigrants if the minimum wage made it too expensive to hire a legal citizen. In effect, raising the minimum wage would affect prices less than usual (due to our massive illegal population). The only thing that raising minimum wage typically does is encourage employers to take the illegal route.

By contrast, energy costs are virtually unavoidable.

[New2u]

...

Are you kidding me? Anything that increases production costs will increase the price of created products. That's what inflation IS.

asu, mac kindly clarified what I said and no, I'm not kidding you. What most businesses tend to do with a raising minimum wage i