Abolish the Welfare System in America Vol. Mature Discussion

[-Red-]

Most of the people in here bashing welfare recipients are so misinformed about the basic ways in which "welfare" works that there's really no point in engaging in a dialogue. Some of you all's levels of ignorance on this subject is simply astounding. Yet y'all are on here bashing people on some "holier than thou" tip and you literally don't know the basic facts about the very system that you're clamoring to "abolish" as a means of punishing impoverished families...

 

[SoleByThePound]

I don't think NT is the place to have this discussion.

 

[gambit215]

Most of the people in here bashing welfare recipients are so misinformed about the basic ways in which "welfare" works that there's really no point in engaging in a dialogue. Some of you all's levels of ignorance on this subject is simply astounding. Yet y'all are on here bashing people on some "holier than thou" tip and you literally don't know the basic facts about the very system that you're clamoring to "abolish" as a means of punishing impoverished families...

Tired of having to reiterate in these welfare threads that single mothers and the elderly are the largest recipient of public assistance, not a black thing, not a white thing............

-There are no Millionaires using EBT cards
-People who use Cash Assistance are BROKE-
-In order for you to have your Macbook Pro in which you can bash poor people, you have to understand there HAS to be poor people, for you to live your mundane middle class existence
- You wanna be C- Class republicans are so Delusional it's pathetic

 

[-Red-]

Part of the reason why it is seen as a black thing is because one of the intended purposes of welfare when its provisions were expanded was to change the make up of minority households. During the early 70s to 80s the black household changed from a strong paternal construct to a maternal one.
This was accomplished on two fronts widespread imprisonment of minorities due to the drug trade and the the easy availablility (for lack of better words) of government assistance to minority women. A hidden stipulation for these benefits is that they weren't allowed to keep a black adult male in their home.
chess not checkers

QFE

*Yes I intentionally put it in huge font so y'all would HAVE to see it*

This is a misrepresentation of the changes in Black family structure that have occurred. The Black family unit did not "change from a strong paternal construct to a maternal one." Black families, more than any other group in US history, have had to be more egalitarian due to oppression which forced both males and females to work outside the home as well as within the home to ensure basic familial survival. There was never an era where Black men "ruled" the Black household...

That being said, the decline in Black marriage and the increase in single parent households in the Black community (led by women) have been influenced tremendously by the expansion of the prison industrial complex over the last 40 years or so. Additionally, changes in the national economy away from industry most severely affected Black males as a group more than any other population. Millions of good paying manufacturing jobs in which relatively uneducated Black men could make a decent living left American cities for other countries where labor was much cheaper. These jobs were replaced by service sector jobs that were lower paying, non-union, had less opportunities for advancement, and were much less likely to employ uneducated Black men as they were jobs that required "customer service" and these men were seen as not possessing the soft skills to perform such jobs. This devolution has led to tremendous increases in Black male unemployment over the last half decade or so...

The welfare requirements of not having a man in the household have always been around. They have not helped things with respect to keeping Black family units intact but they have not had nearly the effect that other forces (like those mentioned above) have had...

 

[gambit215]

This is a misrepresentation of the changes in Black family structure that have occurred. The Black family unit did not "change from a strong paternal construct to a maternal one." Black families, more than any other group in US history, have had to be more egalitarian due to oppression which forced both males and females to work outside the home as well as within the home to ensure basic familial survival. There was never an era where Black men "ruled" the Black household...
That being said, the decline in Black marriage and the increase in single parent households in the Black community (led by women) have been influenced tremendously by the expansion of the prison industrial complex over the last 40 years or so. Additionally, changes in the national economy away from industry most severely affected Black males as a group more than any other population. Millions of good paying manufacturing jobs in which relatively uneducated Black men could make a decent living left American cities for other countries where labor was much cheaper. These jobs were replaced by service sector jobs that were lower paying, non-union, had less opportunities for advancement, and were much less likely to employ uneducated Black men as they were jobs that required "customer service" and these men were seen as not possessing the soft skills to perform such jobs. This devolution has led to tremendous increases in Black male unemployment over the last half decade or so...
The welfare requirements of not having a man in the household have always been around. They have not helped things with respect to keeping Black family units intact but they have not had nearly the effect that other forces (like those mentioned above) have had...

Since you seem to have some sense, please explain to me how did Black People go from getting escorted to certain colleges by the National Guard, to not even considering College as a viable step after High School? When did we start poo pooing on Education?

 

[-Red-]

This is a misrepresentation of the changes in Black family structure that have occurred. The Black family unit did not "change from a strong paternal construct to a maternal one." Black families, more than any other group in US history, have had to be more egalitarian due to oppression which forced both males and females to work outside the home as well as within the home to ensure basic familial survival. There was never an era where Black men "ruled" the Black household...
That being said, the decline in Black marriage and the increase in single parent households in the Black community (led by women) have been influenced tremendously by the expansion of the prison industrial complex over the last 40 years or so. Additionally, changes in the national economy away from industry most severely affected Black males as a group more than any other population. Millions of good paying manufacturing jobs in which relatively uneducated Black men could make a decent living left American cities for other countries where labor was much cheaper. These jobs were replaced by service sector jobs that were lower paying, non-union, had less opportunities for advancement, and were much less likely to employ uneducated Black men as they were jobs that required "customer service" and these men were seen as not possessing the soft skills to perform such jobs. This devolution has led to tremendous increases in Black male unemployment over the last half decade or so...
The welfare requirements of not having a man in the household have always been around. They have not helped things with respect to keeping Black family units intact but they have not had nearly the effect that other forces (like those mentioned above) have had...

Since you seem to have some sense, please explain to me how did Black People go from getting escorted to certain colleges by the National Guard, to not even considering College as a viable step after High School? When did we start poo pooing on Education?

The gains won by the Civil Right Movement disproportionately benefited the Black middle class as they were in leadership positions within the movement that shaped the goals and, ultimately, the outcomes of the movement. These outcomes included things like outlawing restrictive covenants, desegregating public spaces, affirmative action programs for college and white collar jobs, etc.

These same gains allowed middle class Blacks to flee the overcrowded and under-serviced Black ghettos to which they had previously been confined due to restrictive covenants and open racial violence against Blacks moving into white areas, among other factors. Thus, middle class Black folks overwhelmingly left the Black community. What was left in Black communities were working class and impoverished Black folks. The shifts in the national economy I outlined above occurred around this same time. Thus, many working class Blacks lost the jobs that paid them a living wage as the jobs left for third world countries.

Thus, you have a situation in which the concentration of poverty in Black communities has skyrocketed since the 1960s. The people that were left in these communities were unable to support the social institutions that had existed when the communities were socioeconomically diverse so Black stores, banks, churches, social clubs, etc. closed down. The children of these impoverished Black folks were also unable to develop social capital, such as valuing education and hard work, from their working class and middle class counterparts who no longer resided in the community. That's not to say that poor Black families didn't value those things and don't continue to value those things because they overwhelmingly do. However, Black children no longer had real life models that they personally knew and interacted with in their communities everyday that embodied the success of valuing these things. How can you be it if you can't see it?

 

[fac3 tak30v312]

View media item 164126
Please explain to me how this "egalitarian" household as you call it came into existence? Also include vivid details of the practices of punishing or breaking the male slave head of the household in front of his wife and female offspring? Or vice versa, meaning when these men were held down while their wives and daughters were sexually assaulted. The reasoning behind this practice? How about you also address in a post slavery world, after these households united against a singular common enemy with a strong male/paternal head of household how they became "egalitarian"?

I'm not even going to touch on/upon your explanation for black unemployment.

I'm done... There's a macro picture of the world and a micro picture. If you're trapped in the cycle of day to day survival in a world of abundance, you have no choice but to ignore the macro until it's too late. That is how you get the voices of everyday men whispering it's too big too change.

PS don't bother responding to me with your "educated" ignorance. I'm done with this thread

 

[-Red-]

View media item 164126
Please explain to me how this "egalitarian" household as you call it came into existence? Also include vivid details of the practices of punishing or breaking the male slave head of the household in front of his wife and female offspring? Or vice versa, meaning when these men were held down while their wives and daughters were sexually assaulted. The reasoning behind this practice? How about you also address in a post slavery world, after these households united against a singular common enemy with a strong male/paternal head of household how they became "egalitarian"?

I'm not even going to touch on/upon your explanation for black unemployment.

I'm done... There's a macro picture of the world and a micro picture. If you're trapped in the cycle of day to day survival in a world of abundance, you have no choice but to ignore the macro until it's too late. That is how you get the voices of everyday men whispering it's too big too change.

PS don't bother responding to me with your "educated" ignorance. I'm done with this thread

OK, how about some "uneducated ignorance?"

**** is you talking about? You're not saying anything. Make a point or kick rocks...

 

[shoelyesses]

Tired of having to reiterate in these welfare threads that single mothers and the elderly are the largest recipient of public assistance, not a black thing, not a white thing............
-There are no Millionaires using EBT cards
-People who use Cash Assistance are BROKE-
-In order for you to have your Macbook Pro in which you can bash poor people, you have to understand there HAS to be poor people, for you to live your mundane middle class existence
- You wanna be C- Class republicans are so Delusional it's pathetic

i agree with the exception of this.... i know tons and have seen plenty of ppl who have cash assistance and arent broke for a myriad of reasons i kinda touched on earlier. Alot of ppl have side-hustles and or ways of generating unreported income thus can still get cash assistance.

My baby mother for example does this. I was just talking to my old lady about this. My bm had yet another kid and needed an increase of support. She didnt want to ask thru dfcs because she knew/knows she can get more by the scare tactics of threating the other fathers with putting them on child support and thus in doing so, stupidly by them they give her cash which equates more then what she would get in support. She doesnt work well, not an conventional job and get cash assistance as well as all the govt. benefits.

So in order to get said benefits she had to take me off child support to get cash assistance, because what you get in support will be deducted from the cash assistance or eliminated completely depending on how much the supporter pays. But in saying this she gets roughly a few hundred dollars cash from her other two baby daddies, plus the cash assistances... she does hair nails etc.. watches the neighborhood kids all for cash... So the id guess 1200 or so dollars she gets off the books for child support and the cash assistance etc plus what she makes off the books she is pulling in close to 35-40k a year with no bills... I hardly would call that being broke.

And there are tons of ppl who do this (essentially mostly women) whether it be doing hair, stripping, having a cake daddy/simp giving them money, baby daddies who are scared of being on child support etc... thru the govt and pay cash.... all this is unreported income thus they still can get cash assistance ebt etc....

like i said also the whole they review/will terminate benefits if not in school/work... She has gotten around that by having kids (in which they delay in a sense the length of cutting benefitsand by enrolling in those workforce life skill etc... courses/training in which you learn a new trade/skill to find a job... and then they give you a alloted long time to find a job (i believe 6-9 months although due to economy they have been extending this period)

while they do have some sorta check and balance to see if you are looking for a job. Ppl get around this by listing friends/family members etc who do work at respective jobs and list them as reference points.

I know this works because my bm who 5 years ago along with my help had a starting job as a admin. something for a college councelor or something making roughly about 37 or 38k a yr, lives better and has more disposible income in the last 5 years by simply having 2 more kids and wworking and finagaling around (loopholes) of the system. And there are tons of ppl who do things like this... from gtting free food etc from food banks and selling they food stamps etc.. for cash. Signing up for programs inwhich they will give you vouchers etc for stores to buy supplies/clothing etc.... (i know united way has a program for moms returning to work with vouchers for free hair dones, and vouchers to go to stores to get clothes for work and interviews..., as well as vouchers for kid school uniforms)

So like i said if you work it and use various sources etc... you can practically, and many do, live a ok decent life with minimum or no cost on your part.

 

[shoelyesses]

This is a misrepresentation of the changes in Black family structure that have occurred. The Black family unit did not "change from a strong paternal construct to a maternal one." Black families, more than any other group in US history, have had to be more egalitarian due to oppression which forced both males and females to work outside the home as well as within the home to ensure basic familial survival. There was never an era where Black men "ruled" the Black household...
That being said, the decline in Black marriage and the increase in single parent households in the Black community (led by women) have been influenced tremendously by the expansion of the prison industrial complex over the last 40 years or so. Additionally, changes in the national economy away from industry most severely affected Black males as a group more than any other population. Millions of good paying manufacturing jobs in which relatively uneducated Black men could make a decent living left American cities for other countries where labor was much cheaper. These jobs were replaced by service sector jobs that were lower paying, non-union, had less opportunities for advancement, and were much less likely to employ uneducated Black men as they were jobs that required "customer service" and these men were seen as not possessing the soft skills to perform such jobs. This devolution has led to tremendous increases in Black male unemployment over the last half decade or so...
The welfare requirements of not having a man in the household have always been around. They have not helped things with respect to keeping Black family units intact but they have not had nearly the effect that other forces (like those mentioned above) have had...

what do you mean by never ruled the household... do you mean a era in time where the man on a widescale of the race, worked and made enough money to where the woman did not have to work and they could live a decent well off life? Or do you mean in the sense of head of household in which he pretty much was the alpha, and not how it is mostly today in which they are so called equal or that the woman wears the slacks and the man wears the sassoons?

 

[-Red-]

This is a misrepresentation of the changes in Black family structure that have occurred. The Black family unit did not "change from a strong paternal construct to a maternal one." Black families, more than any other group in US history, have had to be more egalitarian due to oppression which forced both males and females to work outside the home as well as within the home to ensure basic familial survival. There was never an era where Black men "ruled" the Black household...

That being said, the decline in Black marriage and the increase in single parent households in the Black community (led by women) have been influenced tremendously by the expansion of the prison industrial complex over the last 40 years or so. Additionally, changes in the national economy away from industry most severely affected Black males as a group more than any other population. Millions of good paying manufacturing jobs in which relatively uneducated Black men could make a decent living left American cities for other countries where labor was much cheaper. These jobs were replaced by service sector jobs that were lower paying, non-union, had less opportunities for advancement, and were much less likely to employ uneducated Black men as they were jobs that required "customer service" and these men were seen as not possessing the soft skills to perform such jobs. This devolution has led to tremendous increases in Black male unemployment over the last half decade or so...

The welfare requirements of not having a man in the household have always been around. They have not helped things with respect to keeping Black family units intact but they have not had nearly the effect that other forces (like those mentioned above) have had...

what do you mean by never ruled the household... do you mean a era in time where the man on a widescale of the race, worked and made enough money to where the woman did not have to work and they could live a decent well off life? Or do you mean in the sense of head of household in which he pretty much was the alpha, and not how it is mostly today in which they are so called equal or that the woman wears the slacks and the man wears the sassoons?

What I mean is that a lot of guys on here bash and blame women for essentially everything. I saw the person I quoted as feeding into that line of thinking, as I took his comments as alluding to some kind of "golden age" when Black men ruled the household and Black women had little to no power and how great everything was back then. Black households, due to economic necessity if nothing else, have always been more egalitarian than white households in the sense that daily duties and responsibilities between males and females were less strictly defined as survival was more important than upholding some white patriarchal sense of what men and women "should" and "shouldn't" do...

 

[shoelyesses]

What I mean is that a lot of guys on here bash and blame women for essentially everything. I saw the person I quoted as feeding into that line of thinking, as I took his comments as alluding to some kind of "golden age" when Black men ruled the household and Black women had little to no power and how great everything was back then. Black households, due to economic necessity if nothing else, have always been more egalitarian than white households in the sense that daily duties and responsibilities between males and females were less strictly defined as survival was more important than upholding some white patriarchal sense of what men and women "should" and "shouldn't" do...

true and one other factor not mentioned is the so called womens movement and how it also contributed to the dissapation of the black household and the whole man vs woman etc in reference to the black family.

 

[fac3 tak30v312]

I called you an educated ignoramus and that is exactly what you are. You claim to write on specifics ignoring the ones that matter. You type about egalitarian households ignoring the facts that during that time period most if not all two parent household were paternal in structure. Furthermore the only maternal households were single parent households. You nitpick at the micro completely missing the point at hand. On the other hand your diatribe about black youth unemployment showed bright as the morning sky the limitations of your intelligence

Well let me tell you a story anonymous. If I owned as stubborn animal, a beast known to be hard to train, carefree, and unwilling. How do I break that animal and its offspring. I do so by punishing it in front of its family, not only stripping it of its pride but also stripping its identity in its family. I also do the inverse, and in fact the inverse is much more powerful. In which I punish its family for the beast's misgivings. That way not only do I tarnish the beast standing in its family but I also send a message that will be passed on for generations.

This was how cattle used to be trained and how black slaves were broken. So 200 years in the future, when you got Shanique talking about she's independent not understanding where this inclination to trample on the psyche of the black male in her life. To always treat him with combativeness instead of compassion. (I was also attempting to bring this full circle showing how welfare was used as a means to a checkmate)

I am here attempting to show you the larger picture, the intended and purposeful outcome. To help you see into my scientist mind. But nooo the anonymous ignoramus will not give way. He will point out that the third line of the second paragraph there is a word spelled incorrectly. He will smile in satisfaction that he knows the correct spelling of a multi syllable word, thinking it proves some modicum of intelligence missing the entire point and message of the passage

PPS. This an extension of my last post I have not read any of your responses and consequently will not. Got luck and God bless


Chess not checkers

 

[shoelyesses]

I called you an educated ignoramus and that is exactly what you are. You claim to write on specifics ignoring the ones that matter. You type about egalitarian households ignoring the facts that during that time period most if not all two parent household were paternal in structure. Furthermore the only maternal households were single parent households. You nitpick at the micro completely missing the point at hand. On the other hand your diatribe about black youth unemployment showed bright as the morning sky the limitations of your intelligence
Well let me tell you a story anonymous. If I owned as stubborn animal, a beast known to be hard to train, carefree, and unwilling. How do I break that animal and its offspring. I do so by punishing it in front of its family, not only stripping it of its pride but also stripping its identity in its family. I also do the inverse, and in fact the inverse is much more powerful. In which I punish its family for the beast's misgivings. That way not only do I tarnish the beast standing in its family but I also send a message that will be passed on for generations.
This was how cattle used to be trained and how black slaves were broken. So 200 years in the future, when you got Shanique talking about she's independent not understanding where this inclination to trample on the psyche of the black male in her life. To always treat him with combativeness instead of compassion. (I was also attempting to bring this full circle showing how welfare was used as a means to a checkmate)
I am here attempting to show you the larger picture, the intended and purposeful outcome. To help you see into my scientist mind. But nooo the anonymous ignoramus will not give way. He will point out that the third line of the second paragraph there is a word spelled incorrectly. He will smile in satisfaction that he knows the correct spelling of a multi syllable word, thinking it proves some modicum of intelligence missing the entire point and message of the passage
PPS. This an extension of my last post I have not read any of your responses and consequently will not. Got luck and God bless
Chess not checkers

and boom goes the dynamite... these are things amongst others i try to emphasize to whites/asians etc... when the whole "race card" slavery was so long ago.. get over it... it doesnt matter in todays time etc... The funny thing about all of this is often times they do realize this and know the factors and play the whole ignore the "elephant in the room" rouse and downplay/sway to another subject etc... its also funny how the only ppl who really understand this and acknowledge many of these factors and truths are the ppl who inflict and impose these ways (whites etc...) and the targeted persons etc.. who are directly affected by it (black males) and everyone else dismisses it and acts ignorant to it.

Kinda reminds me of two ppl in a crowded room who are having a convo where they are kinda like talking in code...or an inside joke... the crowd is getting made fun of and the only ppl aware of the joke is the person telling it, and the person who the joke is directly told to.

 

[brewcrewbux]

jimmies will be ruslted

And someone will find a way to spin this into a racial thread

 

[Coupé It]

Wake Up, Wake Up...It's the First of the Month

Dude's Singing Welfare Carols in here

 

[-Red-]

I called you an educated ignoramus and that is exactly what you are. You claim to write on specifics ignoring the ones that matter. You type about egalitarian households ignoring the facts that during that time period most if not all two parent household were paternal in structure. Furthermore the only maternal households were single parent households. You nitpick at the micro completely missing the point at hand. On the other hand your diatribe about black youth unemployment showed bright as the morning sky the limitations of your intelligence

Well let me tell you a story anonymous. If I owned as stubborn animal, a beast known to be hard to train, carefree, and unwilling. How do I break that animal and its offspring. I do so by punishing it in front of its family, not only stripping it of its pride but also stripping its identity in its family. I also do the inverse, and in fact the inverse is much more powerful. In which I punish its family for the beast's misgivings. That way not only do I tarnish the beast standing in its family but I also send a message that will be passed on for generations.

This was how cattle used to be trained and how black slaves were broken. So 200 years in the future, when you got Shanique talking about she's independent not understanding where this inclination to trample on the psyche of the black male in her life. To always treat him with combativeness instead of compassion. (I was also attempting to bring this full circle showing how welfare was used as a means to a checkmate)

I am here attempting to show you the larger picture, the intended and purposeful outcome. To help you see into my scientist mind. But nooo the anonymous ignoramus will not give way. He will point out that the third line of the second paragraph there is a word spelled incorrectly. He will smile in satisfaction that he knows the correct spelling of a multi syllable word, thinking it proves some modicum of intelligence missing the entire point and message of the passage

PPS. This an extension of my last post I have not read any of your responses and consequently will not. Got luck and God bless


Chess not checkers

Of course you won't. You don't even know what it is that you're trying to argue. How could you respond with any degree of coherence or intelligence to anything I'm stating?

For others that may be reading this, the basic flaw in this guy's argument is that there is a disconnect between saying these issues are fundamentally and directly rooted in slavery during which Black masculinity was systematically stripped... while simultaneously stating that "back in the day" when Black families had a patriarchal structure, these issues didn't exist... but they do today when our society is further removed from slavery than it was in these supposed "glory days" when Black families had a patriarchal structure... which was supposedly eradicated during slavery...

This guy is so confused

 

[the nomad]

Hypothetically if this was agreed upon, what would you do about the crime? Or the police that would go on strike because they are over work and under paid as a result of the hike in violent crimes involving theft and murder?

Who do you think pays these police? You think you're "tired" of paying to raise a female 5 kids, abolish welfare a see how much they take out of your check.


It's easy to judge until you get knocked off your high horse or force to put yourself in someone else's shoes.

 

[shoelyesses]

Hypothetically if this was agreed upon, what would you do about the crime? Or the police that would go on strike because they are over work and under paid as a result of the hike in violent crimes involving theft and murder?

Who do you think pays these police? You think you're "tired" of paying to raise a female 5 kids, abolish welfare a see how much they take out of your check.


It's easy to judge until you get knocked off your high horse or force to put yourself in someone else's shoes.

this was very much the case in new orleans... esp... around the whole "katrina" incident... Also to add majority of these petty crimes etc are done by lower class/poor ppl etc... anyways.. So really it would be an instance of the same ppl who are doing said offenses etc doing it more often and in more abundance.

I get what you are saying but it is extremely complex...i actually think and this is only imo.... that less ppl would be on said govt... assistance. I look at it as this... ppl in general tend to dont give their full effort if they know they have a safety net... a savior if you will... and really dont have to fully take on and be responsible for their actions...

You offer a person a crutch in one instance... and alternatively offer that person nothing.... and put them in a posting of do or die... i truely believe their will/effort etc... will increase. And they will somehow someway find a way.

Think of it like teaching a child how to ride a bike... one kid you guide show them... and let go and force the,/or put them in a position where they have to ride on their own... then take a child that you dont guide show them... expect them to ride on their own yet along the way...run side by side with them with your handout to keep the nike balanced just incase they stumble etc...

Which kid is more likely to be able to ride alone/by themselves? and which kid is going to put forth more of an effort to learn how to ride alone on their on? While the system does in principal helpout often and far too many times the system is a handup and a crutch and scapegoat for ppl to not put forth their best efforts... and in many times be complacent.

I do think their needs to be accountability...and not this whole just taking drug test crap... Surely if banks can monitor and see purchases a similiar thing should be done in regards to ebt... and cash assistance. Also the whole notion of having to get a job/school obtain a work/life skill is horrible at best... like ive illustrated before its so many ways to get around that. I think if you are not working mandatory community service should be in place. Also this whole notion of just training ppl and they can continue to just get various cert.... diplomas etc... and not have to work is flawed. Another thing they should do across the board is have a parenting class etc...program in tact across the board and not limited to males who try to seek visitation or a form of custody for their children. Many of these ppl are young parents and have no clue on what they are doing and kinda just winging it" playing parenthood by ear...

They should also put a cap on amounts dispersed and limit the amount of aid assistance they give interms of sect8... rental asistance etc... hell even for school. What motivation is it for someone to finish college/trade school if essentially with the eic... tax refund offered for single moms who are pursuing school... pell grants and other subsidized monies pay far more then what the education cost...thus allowing them to pocket thousands of dollars each month.

Also the whole child support system needs to be overhauled.... I mean basically the whole govt.. assistance etc infrastructure needs to be overhauled and redone.

 

[wawawowee]

[h1]Profiting From a Child’s Illiteracy[/h1][h6]By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF[/h6]
JACKSON, Ky.

THIS is what poverty sometimes looks like in America: parents here in Appalachian hill country pulling their children out of literacy classes. Moms and dads fear that if kids learn to read, they are less likely to qualify for a monthly check for having an intellectual disability.

Many people in hillside mobile homes here are poor and desperate, and a $698 monthly check  per child from the Supplemental Security Income program goes a long way — and those checks continue until the child turns 18.

“The kids get taken out of the program because the parents are going to lose the check,” said Billie Oaks, who runs a literacy program here in Breathitt County, a poor part of Kentucky. “It’s heartbreaking.”

This is painful for a liberal to admit, but conservatives have a point when they suggest that America’s safety net can sometimes entangle people in a soul-crushing dependency. Our poverty programs do rescue many people, but other times they backfire.

Some young people here don’t join the military (a traditional escape route for poor, rural Americans) because it’s easier to rely on food stamps and disability payments.

Antipoverty programs also discourage marriage: In a means-tested program like S.S.I., a woman raising a child may receive a bigger check if she refrains from marrying that hard-working guy she likes. Yet marriage is one of the best forces to blunt poverty. In married couple households only one child in 10 grows up in poverty, while almost half do in single-mother households.

Most wrenching of all are the parents who think it’s best if a child stays illiterate, because then the family may be able to claim a disability check each month.

“One of the ways you get on this program is having problems in school,” notes Richard V. Burkhauser, a Cornell University economist who co-wrote a book last year about these disability programs. “If you do better in school, you threaten the income of the parents. It’s a terrible incentive.”

....

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/o...cy.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&pagewanted=print&
[h1] [/h1][h1] [/h1]

 

[wawawowee]

Part of the reason why it is seen as a black thing is because one of the intended purposes of welfare when its provisions were expanded was to change the make up of minority households. During the early 70s to 80s the black household changed from a strong paternal construct to a maternal one.
This was accomplished on two fronts widespread imprisonment of minorities due to the drug trade and the the easy availablility (for lack of better words) of government assistance to minority women. A hidden stipulation for these benefits is that they weren't allowed to keep a black adult male in their home.
chess not checkers

I'm not going to say you're wrong because I wouldn't put this past government. 

On the other hand, the end result may also have been a consequences of independent reactions to certain noticeable outcomes over time.

 I don't know if I'm being clear enough .For example, 5 +0 = 5 but 1+1+1+1+1 = 5 as well. We get the same result but we arrive at it through different means. 

What happened to black households might not have been a concerted effort but occurred as a  result of individual policies creating conditions that necessitated other policies and so on and so forth.  

Rationally many welfare programs are the easy way out for politicians. They're thoughtless and expedient "solutions". 

 

[Hunnynutcheerios]

see im a hard worker single parent and i am super proud to say that i have never needed anything from anyone granted i have amazing parents and family so ive been ok i know that not everyone has it good and i dont mind helping people who really truly deserve it but i DO have a problem with having my hard earned cash taken away to help people who sit on their *** all day long and live off the freaking gov! for example i work in a pretty ghetto part of upstate ny and i walked into a rite aid and there was this lady in front of me paying for coffee with her Ebt card and was making a big fuss on paying taxes but then pulled out her debit card to pay for her 36 pack with no problem on the price and it made me mad like you need help buying ****** food but you can afford beer get the **** out of here! thats the type of **** that is wrong with this ******g country there is way too many people abusing the system!..sorry for the rant but that **** really bothers me! 

 

[stunnafasho03]

Agree with OP

 

[rashi]

I don't think NT is the place to have this discussion.

That's why I'm not even touching this thread. People on this board don't grasp the fact that the government has to use violence to collect its taxes to give to other people or kill people (ie war).

 

[wr]

Just be honest. You guys have a mob mentality against the poor and you have been politically polarized on nonsensical rhetoric. You honestly have no idea where your money goes. You are just carrying water for pundits on behalf of people who wish to rob these programs and save on contributing to them.