Three years of college paid for...

[Steelgrave]

I wish that the woman who points her finger at her twelve kids all tucked into a one-bedroom motel room and tells us that "someone needs to be responsible" was white. And I say this because the impact of that scene is so strong that it would make a helluva campaign ad in the upcoming Presidential election, illustrating why the welfare state is so destructive. As it is, to do so would immediately bring charges of racism, since she is black, and sidetrack the entire point. And that in itself is sad, because if you think the welfare state has helped any segment of society in the long run, regardless of color, then you are missing how self-perpetuating the welfare cycle has become.

[LongBlade]

IIRC most welfare recipients used to be white. Probably is the same today, but it was 20 years ago when I took a semester econ course on poverty.

[Steelgrave]

IIRC most welfare recipients used to be white. Probably is the same today, but it was 20 years ago when I took a semester econ course on poverty.

Still true today, although when you look at it percentage-wise, it's not even close. A recent article claimed that California figures showed 84% of first generation latinos to be receiving some type of welfare, but what was alarming was that the third generation (which is where most immigrates start to pull up economically) was not doing so and was turning to gang life instead. Either way, when you have families going into their third generation (or fourth in some cases) of welfare dependency, it's obvious that we as a society aren't doing anyone any favors here.

[son_of_montfort]

IIRC most welfare recipients used to be white. Probably is the same today, but it was 20 years ago when I took a semester econ course on poverty.

Would that not depend upon your definition of "welfare" and what level you were looking at (county, state, federal)? The big error I see in the economic talk of this thread is that is lumps "welfare" into some catch-all definition and tends to push that toward the federal level. The guy in the Judge Judy video was getting county money for rent, and likely federal or state money for tuition. Different things, different jurisdictions. The woman in the Youtube news clip will likely get local aid first, then possibly go higher up (and maybe get social service aid, which comes from state grants).

I worked for 3 years in a social service agency while I was in college. When I see people discuss "welfare recipients" and "welfare programs" in such a broad way, it seems to me that it is an argument from ignorance. I'm not trying to goad or insult when I say that - just that the way in which the media characterizes social programs leads to inaccurate views on the subject.

I'm not speaking from a political standpoint here on the efficacy of welfare and the creation of a culture of entitlement (although I will say the wealthy have their own sense of self-entitlement, it is not just a poverty issue). What I am saying is, if there is a problem in the system we need to be detailed in our understanding of the different LEVELS of the system and where the money comes from and where the money goes.

For example, the social service agency I worked for ran a number of programs (head start, nurses aids, etc.) some were state funded, others private funded, others funded by local fund-raisers. We had a heating program to help people with winter heating. The money came from the state, but it would run out quickly. So I was in charge of answer the phone to tell people we had no money to help with heating and that they should check with their local commissioners (something similar to parish heads).

So, it is a bit more nuanced.

[LongBlade]

IIRC most welfare recipients used to be white. Probably is the same today, but it was 20 years ago when I took a semester econ course on poverty.

Would that not depend upon your definition of "welfare" and what level you were looking at (county, state, federal)? The big error I see in the economic talk of this thread is that is lumps "welfare" into some catch-all definition and tends to push that toward the federal level. The guy in the Judge Judy video was getting county money for rent, and likely federal or state money for tuition. Different things, different jurisdictions. The woman in the Youtube news clip will likely get local aid first, then possibly go higher up (and maybe get social service aid, which comes from state grants).

I worked for 3 years in a social service agency while I was in college. When I see people discuss "welfare recipients" and "welfare programs" in such a broad way, it seems to me that it is an argument from ignorance. I'm not trying to goad or insult when I say that - just that the way in which the media characterizes social programs leads to inaccurate views on the subject.

I'm not speaking from a political standpoint here on the efficacy of welfare and the creation of a culture of entitlement (although I will say the wealthy have their own sense of self-entitlement, it is not just a poverty issue). What I am saying is, if there is a problem in the system we need to be detailed in our understanding of the different LEVELS of the system and where the money comes from and where the money goes.

For example, the social service agency I worked for ran a number of programs (head start, nurses aids, etc.) some were state funded, others private funded, others funded by local fund-raisers. We had a heating program to help people with winter heating. The money came from the state, but it would run out quickly. So I was in charge of answer the phone to tell people we had no money to help with heating and that they should check with their local commissioners (something similar to parish heads).

So, it is a bit more nuanced.

That's an excellent point and one that did not go unnoticed by me.

However, I think when we discuss (and rail against) "welfare" it is the more generic sense that our entitlement state is cranking out dependents rather than departures.

There is nothing wrong with creating some kind of safety net for people who are truly destitute and unable to care for themselves. It is quite another thing for a woman to have a dozen children and fail to understand that her own actions are responsible, and further, to create a system whereby she has a disincentive to a) stop making babies; b) get a husband to stabilize her family; and c) get out of poverty.

For some time we have known of generational poverty where one "welfare momma" teachers her daughters the ropes to perpetuate the cycle.

While we may not be arguing about the specific merits of WIC or AFDC or whatever the current programs are, the general criticism holds: the system is fcuked and needs to be dismantled.

[Steelgrave]

IIRC most welfare recipients used to be white. Probably is the same today, but it was 20 years ago when I took a semester econ course on poverty.

Would that not depend upon your definition of "welfare" and what level you were looking at (county, state, federal)? The big error I see in the economic talk of this thread is that is lumps "welfare" into some catch-all definition and tends to push that toward the federal level. The guy in the Judge Judy video was getting county money for rent, and likely federal or state money for tuition. Different things, different jurisdictions. The woman in the Youtube news clip will likely get local aid first, then possibly go higher up (and maybe get social service aid, which comes from state grants).

I worked for 3 years in a social service agency while I was in college. When I see people discuss "welfare recipients" and "welfare programs" in such a broad way, it seems to me that it is an argument from ignorance. I'm not trying to goad or insult when I say that - just that the way in which the media characterizes social programs leads to inaccurate views on the subject.

I'm not speaking from a political standpoint here on the efficacy of welfare and the creation of a culture of entitlement (although I will say the wealthy have their own sense of self-entitlement, it is not just a poverty issue). What I am saying is, if there is a problem in the system we need to be detailed in our understanding of the different LEVELS of the system and where the money comes from and where the money goes.

For example, the social service agency I worked for ran a number of programs (head start, nurses aids, etc.) some were state funded, others private funded, others funded by local fund-raisers. We had a heating program to help people with winter heating. The money came from the state, but it would run out quickly. So I was in charge of answer the phone to tell people we had no money to help with heating and that they should check with their local commissioners (something similar to parish heads).

So, it is a bit more nuanced.

SoM, just to be clear, I am not attacking poor people nor using buzzwords for any race (not that you suggested that I was doing either!). I believe that some sort of social protections are necessary and the mark of a civilized society. I do think the video in question points out the absurdity of individuals who have come to rely on the nanny state to such a degree that there are no longer any feelings of responsibility to self or to others. This woman has fifteen children and her anger is directed towards society! Really? That's why I said I wish she was white....because she is a poster child of exactly what is wrong with aspects of our welfare state.

Speaking of which...one of my earliest memories is of my grandmother sweeping hell out of the cement floors in the housing project we were living in in Houston. By the time I entered kindergarten, we were living in a rented house with wooden floors. By late elementary, we were in a home we owned. My family and my wife's family came from hard economic circumstances...but each generation has done better. That's what we need to focus on as a society when it comes to social help....deal with the immediate needs, but for God's sake...don't destroy later generations by making welfare a generational thing and glorifying single motherhood. We're destroying families here. Makes you wonder what the future holds for that woman's fifteen kids.

[LongBlade]

We're destroying families here. Makes you wonder what the future holds for that woman's fifteen kids.

That was on my mind, too. I doubt the story ends well, though out of twelve or fifteen, the odds of at least one of them doing something remarkable begin to get a little better.

[Gusington]

^Good posts.

Not so long ago there was such a thing as "workfare" where those who had no reason to not work were given jobs in exchange for their benefits.  I know for a time a workfare program exited in NYC. Do they still exist?

[LongBlade]

^Good posts.

Not so long ago there was such a thing as "workfare" where those who had no reason to not work were given jobs in exchange for their benefits.  I know for a time a workfare program exited in NYC. Do they still exist?

IIRC that was a joint effort of Clinton and Gingrich.

I have no idea what happened, but given the current circumstances it was probably overwhelmed by successive waves of spending. Of which Bush II probably owns a decent share.

[Gusington]

There should be A LOT more "workfare."

[son_of_montfort]

SoM, just to be clear, I am not attacking poor people nor using buzzwords for any race (not that you suggested that I was doing either!). I believe that some sort of social protections are necessary and the mark of a civilized society. I do think the video in question points out the absurdity of individuals who have come to rely on the nanny state to such a degree that there are no longer any feelings of responsibility to self or to others. This woman has fifteen children and her anger is directed towards society! Really? That's why I said I wish she was white....because she is a poster child of exactly what is wrong with aspects of our welfare state.

Obviously you realized that my post was not directed at you, or anyone in particular and that is good. I'm glad you all agree that we need to think of these issues in as much detail as possible. Money comes from all sources and flows to all destinations in social service arenas. I would go so far as to say a lot of what I dealt with on the local level was State money. Now the state got some of this money itself from the Federal government. The layers are byzantine.

That video was sensational. I don't know how much stock I would put into it. I've never been a big believer in the economic argument of a "culture of entitlement" with the unworking poor. It didn't hold water in the 19th and early 20th centuries and it doesn't seem any more accurate now. Or, to be more specific, I don't believe that ONLY the poor has a culture of entitlement - the wealthy and middle class has their own interests they want protected by the government (or authorities). History is marked and often driven by the clashes of interests between different groups for support of the ruler/ruling class/government.

I don't have a point here, nor a political argument, nor a solution, nor even a clear statement of what I see as a problem. I'm just basically pontificating for no purpose.  8)

[Steelgrave]

I don't believe that ONLY the poor has a culture of entitlement - the wealthy and middle class has their own interests they want protected by the government (or authorities). History is marked and often driven by the clashes of interests between different groups for support of the ruler/ruling class/government.

That's pretty difficult to argue against. Good point, SoM. Damn, this keeps up and we will be singing "Kumbaya" and roasting marshmellows by the campfire.

[Windigo]

I wish that the woman who points her finger at her twelve kids all tucked into a one-bedroom motel room and tells us that "someone needs to be responsible" was white. And I say this because the impact of that scene is so strong that it would make a helluva campaign ad in the upcoming Presidential election, illustrating why the welfare state is so destructive. As it is, to do so would immediately bring charges of racism, since she is black, and sidetrack the entire point. And that in itself is sad, because if you think the welfare state has helped any segment of society in the long run, regardless of color, then you are missing how self-perpetuating the welfare cycle has become.

since when is colour an excuse to not tell someone (who desperately needs it) they are stupid and selfish and frankly in need of a spanking???

[Windigo]

IIRC most welfare recipients used to be white. Probably is the same today, but it was 20 years ago when I took a semester econ course on poverty.

Would that not depend upon your definition of "welfare" and what level you were looking at (county, state, federal)? The big error I see in the economic talk of this thread is that is lumps "welfare" into some catch-all definition and tends to push that toward the federal level. The guy in the Judge Judy video was getting county money for rent, and likely federal or state money for tuition. Different things, different jurisdictions. The woman in the Youtube news clip will likely get local aid first, then possibly go higher up (and maybe get social service aid, which comes from state grants).

I worked for 3 years in a social service agency while I was in college. When I see people discuss "welfare recipients" and "welfare programs" in such a broad way, it seems to me that it is an argument from ignorance. I'm not trying to goad or insult when I say that - just that the way in which the media characterizes social programs leads to inaccurate views on the subject.

I'm not speaking from a political standpoint here on the efficacy of welfare and the creation of a culture of entitlement (although I will say the wealthy have their own sense of self-entitlement, it is not just a poverty issue). What I am saying is, if there is a problem in the system we need to be detailed in our understanding of the different LEVELS of the system and where the money comes from and where the money goes.

For example, the social service agency I worked for ran a number of programs (head start, nurses aids, etc.) some were state funded, others private funded, others funded by local fund-raisers. We had a heating program to help people with winter heating. The money came from the state, but it would run out quickly. So I was in charge of answer the phone to tell people we had no money to help with heating and that they should check with their local commissioners (something similar to parish heads).

So, it is a bit more nuanced.

nuanced smoo-anced. It is still people receiving financial assistance from a benevolent public and that should never ever be taken for granted

every once in a while I truly get all uppity about the level of taxes I pay.... and then I realize that Daniel is alive, fed, cared for and engaged in a meaningful way - all at the benevolence of public taxes and largess. My large tax payout becomes more meaningful when seen that way to me.

[son_of_montfort]

I don't believe that ONLY the poor has a culture of entitlement - the wealthy and middle class has their own interests they want protected by the government (or authorities). History is marked and often driven by the clashes of interests between different groups for support of the ruler/ruling class/government.

That's pretty difficult to argue against. Good point, SoM. Damn, this keeps up and we will be singing "Kumbaya" and roasting marshmellows by the campfire.

I've been re-editing my dissertation the past 10 days. Can you tell what one of my theoretical arguments might be?  ;) I'm debating if we should have a NYC trip of the jokers here to my defense (Gus is already in). But I wouldn't want LB to leap up and declare the room communists (room full of academics) or for Smuck to start an anti-contraception rally (Catholic University).  Is it sad that I actually think you, Steelie, would be the best behaved? ;D

every once in a while I truly get all uppity about the level of taxes I pay.... and then I realize that Daniel is alive, fed, cared for and engaged in a meaningful way - all at the benevolence of public taxes and largess. My large tax payout becomes more meaningful when seen that way to me.

Personal experience has a way of changing perspective. Although, in America, you would be surprised at the number of people who got their start with their parents on welfare programs, who grow up to rail against welfare programs. My generation is particularly weird about it...