Trouble in the nanny state

[mocgator]

More arguments supporting my case that the welfare broodmares are the cause of much that is wrong in the USA..

http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/trouble-in-the-nanny-state/

Unwed mothers have been the perennial excuse for big government, going back to Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, who plotted in the 1960s to create broken families, welfare dependency and urban riots to pave the way for socialist revolution.

That’s why single mothers are revered victims – victims in need of an ever-expanding social safety net, staffed with well-pensioned government workers. As described in that great book, “Guilty: Liberal ‘Victims’ and Their Assault on America,” liberals concoct fake victims in order to victimize the rest of us.

The only thing single mothers are “victims” of is their own choice to have sex with men they’re not married to. Liberals seem to believe that drinking soda is voluntary, but getting pregnant is more like catching the flu.

It would be hard to make the case that fast food, plastic bags and cigarettes do more damage than single motherhood.

So liberals don’t try to make that case. They just say they’re against “shaming” and then go back to shaming gun owners, non-recyclers, smokers and “Big Gulp” aficionados – while subsidizing illegitimacy.

[rivergator]

I'm trying to figure out who reveres single motherhood.

[gatorman_07732]

I'm trying to figure out who reveres single motherhood.

Hollywood for one

[rivergator]

Hollywood for one


How so?

[gatorman_07732]

How so?

Well I'll give you a perfect example to which I'm sure you'll disagree. I believe the whole Murphy Brown situation which started out with an episode of her having a baby with no father in the picture. She got criticized and did not back down and made no bones about revering single motherhood.

[rivergator]

Well I'll give you a perfect example to which I'm sure you'll disagree. I believe the whole Murphy Brown situation which started out with an episode of her having a baby with no father in the picture. She got criticized and did not back down and made no bones about revering single motherhood.

I'm not sure a TV show or movie showing what's happening in real life is exactly the same as 'revering' it.

[gatorman_07732]

I'm not sure a TV show or movie showing what's happening in real life is exactly the same as 'revering' it.

As I said, I'm sure you would disagree. Hollywood is perfectly capable of sending messages through their content for the boob-tube crowd. Why else would we manage what our kids watch?

[wygator]

Ten years after the fact, Candice Bergen said Dan Quayle was right:

All that righteous indignation for nothing: Candice Bergen, it turns out, actually concurred with Dan Quayle, who 10 years ago, when he was Vice-President, famously criticized her and her TV show, "Murphy Brown," for presenting a leading character as an unwed mother. At the time, Quayle, who was long the butt of jokes for his several grammatical and logical gaffes in public, attacked Bergen's "Murphy Brown" TV character for "mocking the importance of fathers by bearing a child alone and calling it just another 'lifestyle choice.'" Commentators had a field day -- mostly asking whether Quayle had anything better to do -- while on the CBS sitcom itself, Bergen, as Brown, was shown heavily bogged down with the chores of motherhood and asking what Dan Quayle found so glamorous about her situation. But, reports the Associated Press, speaking to TV reporters this week, Bergen, now 56 (and a lifelong liberal, despite having a staunchly conservative father, ventriloquist Edgar Bergen), declared: "I never have really said much about the whole episode, which was endless. But his speech was a perfectly intelligent speech about fathers not being dispensable and nobody agreed with that more than I did."

Popular entertainment media matters to many people. Do you think the sexualization on MTV doesn't impact our teens?

I always find it interesting that Hollywood claims that their stories on TV or in movies won't affect peoples behavior. Yet major corporations buy time in those programs in 30 second snippets betting that media messages do, in fact, affect peoples behavior. Remember the boom in Reeses pieces sales after their simple product placement in ET?

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,624379,00.html

[rivergator]

Ten years after the fact, Candice Bergen said Dan Quayle was right:



Popular entertainment media matters to many people. Do you think the sexualization on MTV doesn't impact our teens?

I always find it interesting that Hollywood claims that their stories on TV or in movies won't affect peoples behavior. Yet major corporations buy time in those programs in 30 second snippets betting that media messages do, in fact, affect peoples behavior. Remember the boom in Reeses pieces sales after their simple product placement in ET?

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,624379,00.html

I certainly agree that all media has some effect: Music, movies, TV ...
I just disagreed with the 'revere' part of it.

[HALLGATOR]

If this is a big part of the problem what is/are the solution(s)?

[gatorman_07732]

I certainly agree that all media has some effect: Music, movies, TV ...
I just disagreed with the 'revere' part of it.

That is denial because that is exactly what Murphy Brown did

[PITBOSS]

................That’s why single mothers are revered victims – victims in need of an ever-expanding social safety net, staffed with well-pensioned government workers. As described in that great book, “Guilty: Liberal ‘Victims’ and Their Assault on America,” liberals concoct fake victims in order to victimize the rest of us.

The only thing single mothers are “victims” of is their own choice to have sex with men they’re not married to. Liberals seem to believe that drinking soda is voluntary, but getting pregnant is more like catching the flu.

It would be hard to make the case that fast food, plastic bags and cigarettes do more damage than single motherhood.

So liberals don’t try to make that case. They just say they’re against “shaming” and then go back to shaming gun owners, non-recyclers, smokers and “Big Gulp” aficionados – while subsidizing illegitimacy.

So gun owners are victims because their feelings are hurt and they feel shame? Or it’s hypocritical somehow because we don't make single mothers feel shame and they are the same as gun owners?! Or is it....we should just shame single mothers more?! What IS the point?!??!?!

And posting a Anne Coulter Op Ed? Seriously? :laugh:

[rivergator]

If this is a big part of the problem what is/are the solution(s)?

that's the question, isn't it?

[rivergator]

So gun owners are victims because their feelings are hurt and they feel shame? Or it’s hypocritical somehow because we don't make single mothers feel shame and they are the same as gun owners?! Or is it....we should just shame single mothers more?! What IS the point?!??!?!

And posting a Anne Coulter Op Ed? Seriously? :laugh:



The other day, one of the leaders in the rightwing Family Research Council said we should be ostracizing, shaming even punishing people who have premarital sex. That it's all the Supreme Court's fault because it ruled that single people have a right to contraceptives., which means they have the right to sex, of all things.

[MichiGator2002]

This would be the Family Research Council that recently was targeted for an act of political terrorism by someone who, unlike a Loughner or Holmes, appeared not to be suffering any mental illness, who recently plead guilty. Apropos of nothing, just felt like a reminder.

Their position that we need to reintroduce the concept of shame back into our social interactions has nothing to do with out rights. Liberals try to shame gunowners and SUV owners and smokers, white people merely for existing, etc, all the time. Promiscuity has no net beneficial effects to society. Trying to reestablish a social norm against it is a way to try to curb it without having to rely on tyranny.

[gatordowneast]

A good start on correcting the problem would be to cut out the "reward" for birthing children out of wedlock. You get X amount of money to help you with your child but if you birth any more, no more dough. And you only get dough to help the first child for a maximum of 2 years and then we are done...so you have 2 years to get yourself some training for a job or to get yourself employed. After that, you either need to be working or go see your friends, family or charities for assistance. 2 years...and we the taxpayers are done with funding you.

[gatorman_07732]

A good start on correcting the problem would be to cut out the "reward" for birthing children out of wedlock. You get X amount of money to help you with your child but if you birth any more, no more dough. And you only get dough to help the first child for a maximum of 2 years and then we are done...so you have 2 years to get yourself some training for a job or to get yourself employed. After that, you either need to be working or go see your friends, family or charities for assistance. 2 years...and we the taxpayers are done with funding you.

It has been accepted as the norm in certain circles of todays society and in there is the problem. It is generations deep and has permeated to perhaps the point of no return. Unless it become vilified like smoking has, there is no hope.

[channingcrowderhungry]

Their position that we need to reintroduce the concept of shame back into our social interactions has nothing to do with out rights. Liberals try to shame gunowners and SUV owners and smokers, white people merely for existing, etc, all the time. Promiscuity has no net beneficial effects to society. Trying to reestablish a social norm against it is a way to try to curb it without having to rely on tyranny.

This is the only real solution I've ever been able to come up with. Shame. People used to be ashamed to be a single mother, a dead beat dad, fat, and any number of things. Being socially shamed has basically left our society. I'm not talking about being bullied, but a personal sense of pride.

[gatordowneast]

It has been accepted as the norm in certain circles of todays society and in there is the problem. It is generations deep and has permeated to perhaps the point of no return. Unless it become vilified like smoking has, there is no hope.

I would agree. We have 3 generations (starting in the mid 60s with the war on poverty) that have the playbook down of where to apply for what program and how much you get.

However, we need to break the cycle at some point...might as well be now. Everyone getting aid has 2 years to get off. 24 months and you are done. That includes foreign aid as well. 2 years. 24 months. 104 weeks. 730 days. And the spigot is turned off.

[PSGator66]

Some of these women work the system like a Philadelphia attorney and then pass on what they know to the next generation.

[gatornana]

It has been accepted as the norm in certain circles of todays society and in there is the problem. It is generations deep and has permeated to perhaps the point of no return. Unless it become vilified like smoking has, there is no hope.

Our society used to vilify young moms....it led to exploitation, abuse and forcing young mothers to put their child up for adoption.

We may have swung too far in the opposite direction, but to go back isn't the answer either.

Following your train of thought here, should society vilify young men and their behavior?

[vangator1]

Well said moc.

[VAg8r1]

The government was, in part, responsible, for increased illegitimacy and dependence, however the problem preceded in Johnson's War on Poverty by at least in decade. In 1965, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan published a paper entitled "The Negro Family: The Case for National Action,” also referred to as the Moynihan Report. According to Moynihan the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program was largely responsible for the increased illegitimacy report. Moynihan used data from the late '50s and early '60s, prior to the War in Poverty. AFDC contributed to illegitimacy and family breakup by actually prohibiting intact families from receiving aid. Liberals condemned the Moynihan Report as racist. Conservatives on the other hand praised the conclusions of the report while rejecting all of Moynihan's recommendations which included replacing AFDC with an assistance program that provided aid to intact families and making the government the employer of last resort. To some extent things have changed very little in the last forty years. Conservatives are still condemning illegitimacy while opposing solutions to ameliorating the problem including comprehensive sex education (very effective in Europe), subsidized contraception and the funding of Planned Parenthood.

[gatorman_07732]

Our society used to vilify young moms....it led to exploitation, abuse and forcing young mothers to put their child up for adoption.

We may have swung too far in the opposite direction, but to go back isn't the answer either.

Following your train of thought here, should society vilify young men and their behavior?

And look what happened when it became widely accepted.

[gatornana]

And look what happened when it became widely accepted.

Are you suggesting that, because we have some single moms on gov assistance, we vilify them and go back to exploitation, abuse and forced adoption? Is that the only answer to this?

[gatorman_07732]

Are you suggesting that, because we have some single moms on gov assistance, we vilify them and go back to exploitation, abuse and forced adoption? Is that the only answer to this?

It's more than that, it's that because it became accepted as "normal" it has permeated society and is destroying the family unit. If you want to destroy a country do it from within with societal decay.

[egator1245]

Are you suggesting that, because we have some single moms on gov assistance, we vilify them and go back to exploitation, abuse and forced adoption? Is that the only answer to this?

Some,
_some single Moms, are you serious?

[gatornana]

It's more than that, it's that because it became accepted as "normal" it has permeated society and is destroying the family unit. If you want to destroy a country do it from within with societal decay.

How does having babies outside of marriage destroy the family unit, cause society's decay?

Aren't there other factors in play here.....first being the lack of responsibility of fathers?

[gatorman_07732]

How does having babies outside of marriage destroy the family unit, cause society's decay?

Aren't there other factors in play here.....first being the lack of responsibility of fathers?

I'm not alleviating any responsibilities of the fathers and they of course need to be held accountable. A healthy family unit has always been a mother, father and children. Yes there are exceptions of dysfunctional family units but thats more of the exception than the rule. You can't deny that with a healthy family unit, the child(ren)'s chance of success in life dramatically increases. Having childen out of wedlock should be stigmatized period.

[gator85jd]

This would be the Family Research Council that recently was targeted for an act of political terrorism by someone who, unlike a Loughner or Holmes, appeared not to be suffering any mental illness, who recently plead guilty. Apropos of nothing, just felt like a reminder.

Their position that we need to reintroduce the concept of shame back into our social interactions has nothing to do with out rights. Liberals try to shame gunowners and SUV owners and smokers, white people merely for existing, etc, all the time. Promiscuity has no net beneficial effects to society. Trying to reestablish a social norm against it is a way to try to curb it without having to rely on tyranny.

Very true. Liberals are very good shame mongers. The religion of liberals is big government. Curbing promiscuity would lead to fewer bastards -- not good for big government.

[PITBOSS]

This is the only real solution I've ever been able to come up with. Shame. .....


look at some of these types on the far right wing. want to go thru life judging others and make a public mockery of others. This is their ‘solution’. :sick:

Not sure your religion and you might be atheist and have no idea of its teachings – but Christianity has a very strong belief/and many lessons of not judging others. This is still a good lesson for all. If you ever get a chance maybe read some of The Bible. You might be surprised how much you can learn.

[rivergator]

Just fyi, from what I've read, the unmarried birth rate in Sweden has gone way up in recent years, but the difference is that the mother and father stay together. they're just not married.

[mocgator]

If this is a big part of the problem what is/are the solution(s)?

We can start by not having government subsidize the bad behavior and choices.

[gatornana]

I'm not alleviating any responsibilities of the fathers and they of course need to be held accountable. A healthy family unit has always been a mother, father and children. Yes there are exceptions of dysfunctional family units but thats more of the exception than the rule. You can't deny that with a healthy family unit, the child(ren)'s chance of success in life dramatically increases. Having childen out of wedlock should be stigmatized period.

The key thing here is "healthy".......a non-traditional family can be as healthy or healthier than an intact, traditional family. Love, support and good parenting can come from a single parent.

Dysfunction can be found in single mom or traditional families. We've lost sight of that in the effort these days to bash and blame single moms for the ills of our society.

[channingcrowderhungry]

look at some of these types on the far right wing. want to go thru life judging others and make a public mockery of others. This is their ‘solution’. :sick:

Not sure your religion and you might be atheist and have no idea of its teachings – but Christianity has a very strong belief/and many lessons of not judging others. This is still a good lesson for all. If you ever get a chance maybe read some of The Bible. You might be surprised how much you can learn.

Oh the sweet irony of a post judging me, yet extolling the virtues of Christianity for not judging others. Classic.

[gatorman_07732]

The key thing here is "healthy".......a non-traditional family can be as healthy or healthier than an intact, traditional family. Love, support and good parenting can come from a single parent.

Dysfunction can be found in single mom or traditional families. We've lost sight of that in the effort these days to bash and blame single moms for the ills of our society.

Can be, yes. Likely, no. The percentages are against it. The likelihood that the child grows up in poverty increases dramatically.

[wgbgator]

Just fyi, from what I've read, the unmarried birth rate in Sweden has gone way up in recent years, but the difference is that the mother and father stay together. they're just not married.

Once people see that parents and families not staying together is basically an economic problem, and not really anything else, people will get it. We're too caught up in BS side issues that are basically an outgrowths of the economic issues of families being displaced, treating that as the disease rather than the symptom.

[gatordowneast]

Way too much rationalization going on by libbies on the board. No one needs to vilify anyone. Just cut off the money. Give them 2 years to get training and find a job and they are done. And do like several states have attempted to do. No more than 5 years of government aid in your lifetime....PERIOD. Quit providing outs. Quit making excuses.

If a woman spreads her legs and gives it up, she is responsible unless she is raped or coerced and if so she needs to call the police. (seems to happen to our football players). Women need to gain some respect for themselves and realize you are not going to get a man by sleeping with him on the first date. You might catch a disease but will not catch a man because a real man who is responsible, respectful and will support you will not try to get in your pants on the first date. An immature boy will but not a real man.

As for men, they need to be held financially responsible for their actions also. But how do you force some street hood to pay who has no income other than selling drugs? How do you force a man to pay who can't pay his own rent?

[T3goalie]

We can start by not having government subsidize the bad behavior and choices.

Bite your tongue moc. These poor innocent sluts, I mean poor innocent souls, are victims of a cruel and cynical cast system of impoverished schools and homes.

They were merely exploring their emotions, bodies and sexuality. They had no idea they could get pregnant and be "punished with a baby". Do you expect them to pay their own way and be responsible for their actions? Do you expect them to be responsible for their own heirs? That is your job.

Get in the game moc, this is not 1950 anymore. Have a heart and compassion for these poor, ignorant, uneducated Hoes, i mean beings. You have a moral responsibility to care and love these children, feed them, put a roof over their head, pay for their school, lunches, health care, and even get them a phone when they turn 7. They have need and their need is claim on you and all mankind.

But, alas, don't worry, you don't have to lift a finger... The Gov't will merely take 39% of your earnings and use part of it to make sure to subsidize these people in a fashion that their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren live in the same sh!thole, meager, subsidized existence 50 years from now. All the while proclaiming their love and reminding you that their need is a mortgage on you, your children and your grandchildren. Sacrifice a little moc and be a good lamb.

I hope that clears up your naive 1950s :angry: thinking.

[dynogator]

It has been accepted as the norm in certain circles of todays society and in there is the problem. It is generations deep and has permeated to perhaps the point of no return. Unless it become vilified like smoking has, there is no hope.

Actually, there have been quite a few reforms enacted regarding welfare, the big ones in 1996. Recipients have to work 20-30 hours per week to receive benefits, for example. Welfare is administered at the state level, using federal grants. And far from generational, there are lifetime caps in 40 out of the 50 states.

States with 60-Month Limits

"There are 32 states that have 60-month lifetime limits on transitional assistance benefits. Once the 60-month limit is reached, the state either closes the assistance case or removes the adult from the assistance program. Those states are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina and South Dakota. The District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico also follow the 60-month limit."

States with 48-Month Time Limits

"The states of Florida and Georgia have 48-month lifetime limits for welfare assistance. As in most states, if an individual becomes noncompliant, their welfare assistance case is automatically closed. When that happens, the case has to be totally reopened and reviewed by the state welfare board."

States with 24-Month Time Limits

"The state of Arkansas has the most aggressive welfare reform program in the United States. Arkansas is the only state with a 24-month lifetime limit. After the 24-month limit expires, the individual has to reapply for benefits through the state welfare commission and start a new case file, a process that can range from one to three months."

States with No Time Limits

"Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska and Oregon have no lifetime limits for individuals receiving welfare assistance. In the state of Oregon, a time limit can be imposed on noncompliant cases. However, these four states have developed flexible programs concerning workforce development and they use a portion of welfare funding and benefits for business and economic development."

Read more: Which States Have Welfare Time Limits? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_7723411_states-welfare-time-limits.html#ixzz2NfE6uYRn

[dynogator]

If this is a big part of the problem what is/are the solution(s)?

No welfare for anyone who can't produce a marriage license, obviously. (I wonder if divorcees would be eligible, at least they gave it a shot.)

I don't think people who start the discussion with "welfare broodmares," is really interested in a meaningful discussion about the consequences of single parenthood. I don't even know if single parents are the biggest welfare demographic--I suspect there's many married couples and single people who depend on welfare to get by. Of course, "married couple on welfare due to catastrophic illness," isn't as catchy as "broodmares."

[gatordowneast]

T3 gave the best explanation of the problem and solutions. Of course the libbies may not realize he is doing it "tongue and cheek" which is why the problem perpetuates itself. They probably think what he jokes about is right on other than the tax rate of 39% is too low!

[dynogator]

We can start by not having government subsidize the bad behavior and choices.

You only single out one "bad behavior." What about divorce? Did you know that the single biggest demographic on welfare is white women with one or two children? They can't all be "broodmares." My guess is that a lot of them were happily married at some point, so evidently a wedding ring isn't a fail-safe inoculation against poverty.

[chemgator]

Teacher:

What do you want to be when you grow up?


6-Year-Old:

I can't wait until I'm old enough to start having babies and get my government checks.


Yes, it's that bad. My wife actually had that conversation with one of her school kids.


A big part of the problem is the system that democrats set up that punishes marriage and punishes people who try to improve themselves. If you have two adults making $15k per year each, and they are unmarried, they are eligible for all kinds of gov't benefits. If they get married, they are a couple making $30k a year, and most of the benefits disappear.

Also, if they have a chance to get a better job and improve their pay, there is little or no incentive for them to do so, as they will lose benefits at a rate almost equal to their salary increase. They call it the "incremental tax rate" (although it's not exactly taxes). If they go from $15k/yr to $25k/yr in salary, but lose $9k in gov't benefits because they no longer qualify for them, the incremental tax rate on the additional $10k in income is 90%. They might have to work a lot harder in their new job, but they will only have an additional $1,000 in income to show for it.

The democrats set up a horrible system of benefits that encourages laziness and punishes ambition.

[HALLGATOR]

Teacher:


6-Year-Old:


Yes, it's that bad. My wife actually had that conversation with one of her school kids.


A big part of the problem is the system that democrats set up that punishes marriage and punishes people who try to improve themselves. If you have two adults making $15k per year each, and they are unmarried, they are eligible for all kinds of gov't benefits. If they get married, they are a couple making $30k a year, and most of the benefits disappear.

Also, if they have a chance to get a better job and improve their pay, there is little or no incentive for them to do so, as they will lose benefits at a rate almost equal to their salary increase. They call it the "incremental tax rate" (although it's not exactly taxes). If they go from $15k/yr to $25k/yr in salary, but lose $9k in gov't benefits because they no longer qualify for them, the incremental tax rate on the additional $10k in income is 90%. They might have to work a lot harder in their new job, but they will only have an additional $1,000 in income to show for it.

The democrats set up a horrible system of benefits that encourages laziness and punishes ambition.

I agree the way the system was originally set up was problematic. One good way to start would be to revisit these guidelines and see how we can go about helping to restore two parent families.

[HALLGATOR]

We can start by not having government subsidize the bad behavior and choices.

That sounds good but it really doesn't flesh out any answers. Do you propose to just cut off all of the money in one fell swoop, and if you do how far have you looked into the future? Actions always have consequences no matter who the actions are implemented by.

[T3goalie]

That sounds good but it really doesn't flesh out any Answers. Do you propose to just cut off all of the money in one fell swoop, and if you do how far have you looked into the Future? Actions always have Consequences no matter who the actions are implemented by.

I agree with you 100%.

The current answers create dependency, entitlement mentality, illiteracy, high incarceration rates, sh!t schools, little to no opportunity, high crime rates...

The future for these economic slaves is children and grandchildren living in the same sh!tholes, in the same sh!t schools and continued generations of illiteracy and ignorance.

Actions have consequences see Detroit, see Chicago...the consequences of today's lunacy are decades and generations of the hopeless souls who know no better and live hand to mouth on subsidy, low employment or crime with little to no chance at upward mobility. They represent a guarantied voting block for their Masters who give them morsels to live on while the real buying power diminishes daily. Those who claim to love and care create an insidious system of control and slums. Answers? that is a joke. Today"s Answers are the cause of the problem. With love like that who needs hate? Brave new world indeed!

[oaklandroadie]

http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/a/SB10001424127887323826704578356494206134184?mg=ren o64-wsj

58% of first births (the mother's first child), is to unwed mothers. Sort of blows away the premise by some on this thread that single moms are escaping a bad situation.are

[northgagator]

I would agree. We have 3 generations (starting in the mid 60s with the war on poverty) that have the playbook down of where to apply for what program and how much you get.

The gov't spends more money on the play book for "What to do when you fail" then it does on the play book on "How to succeed"

Whatever happen to "failure is not an option" ?

[gatordowneast]

The gov't spends more money on the play book for "What to do when you fail" then it does on the play book on "How to succeed"

Whatever happen to "failure is not an option" ?

Libbies never learn this philosophy which is why (unless they are funded by someone else) they aren't willing to put themselves in the arena. It is better to be the "best of the worst" and the "worst of the best". Average.

And of course have guvmint or you and I pay for their Average existence. And lord, don't try to hold them accountable or responsible.

[dynogator]

http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/a/SB10001424127887323826704578356494206134184?mg=ren o64-wsj

58% of first births (the mother's first child), is to unwed mothers. Sort of blows away the premise by some on this thread that single moms are escaping a bad situation.

It "blows away," nothing, unless all these single parents are also on welfare. Is that the case?

[chemgator]

I would propose (for a start) that WIC cards only be used for purchasing basic staples. That includes: fresh or canned fruits or vegetables, pork or chicken (no fish or beef), milk, American cheese, peanut butter, jelly, bread, generic cereals, and 2+ lb. bags of rice. Maybe Spam, and maybe cooking oil. That's it. No beef, no shrimp, no salmon, no Doritos, no Spaghettios, no donuts or cookies, no ice cream, no Coca-Cola, no candy. Find out how much of these items a particular sized family needs every week to survive, and limit the WIC card to that amount or less.

After a while, we will start seeing more skinny poor people, and we'll improve the health problems caused by all that gov't-funded obesity, AND we'll be saving money to boot. An added benefit is we'll be reducing our gov't funding of gambling, illegal drugs, and alcohol.

[dynogator]

I would propose (for a start) that WIC cards only be used for purchasing basic staples. That includes: fresh or canned fruits or vegetables, pork or chicken (no fish or beef), milk, American cheese, peanut butter, jelly, bread, generic cereals, and 2+ lb. bags of rice. Maybe Spam, and maybe cooking oil. That's it. No beef, no shrimp, no salmon, no Doritos, no Spaghettios, no donuts or cookies, no ice cream, no Coca-Cola, no candy. Find out how much of these items a particular sized family needs every week to survive, and limit the WIC card to that amount or less.

After a while, we will start seeing more skinny poor people, and we'll improve the health problems caused by all that gov't-funded obesity, AND we'll be saving money to boot. An added benefit is we'll be reducing our gov't funding of gambling, illegal drugs, and alcohol.

I think you're confusing WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) with food stamps. WIC is much more restrictive. The eligible items should meet with even your approval:

What can I buy with WIC checks?

"WIC checks are easy to use! You can use them to get free healthy food and formula at over 1000 authorized grocery stores and pharmacies statewide. WIC foods are chosen because they contain the nutrients that women, infants and children need during pregnancy, breastfeeding, infancy, and early childhood. Examples of WIC foods include milk, cereal, cheese, eggs, fruit juice, peanut butter, dried beans/peas, canned beans, whole grain bread, tortillas, brown rice, canned fish, infant formula, infant cereal, baby fruits and vegetables, baby meats, tofu, soy milk, and fruits & vegetables."

[gatordowneast]

I would propose (for a start) that WIC cards only be used for purchasing basic staples. That includes: fresh or canned fruits or vegetables, pork or chicken (no fish or beef), milk, American cheese, peanut butter, jelly, bread, generic cereals, and 2+ lb. bags of rice. Maybe Spam, and maybe cooking oil. That's it. No beef, no shrimp, no salmon, no Doritos, no Spaghettios, no donuts or cookies, no ice cream, no Coca-Cola, no candy. Find out how much of these items a particular sized family needs every week to survive, and limit the WIC card to that amount or less.

After a while, we will start seeing more skinny poor people, and we'll improve the health problems caused by all that gov't-funded obesity, AND we'll be saving money to boot. An added benefit is we'll be reducing our gov't funding of gambling, illegal drugs, and alcohol.

And no getting cash from an ATM with the EBT rip off the taxpayer cards. And no cash back at the grocery store.

[gator85jd]

And no getting cash from an ATM with the EBT rip off the taxpayer cards. And no cash back at the grocery store.

Why not have those who need food participate in urban gardening? Participation would make them eligible for food (some that they've helped grow and some other nutritious fresh food) and other essential OTC health products and household items from a co-op style distribution center that is staffed by others who need assistance.

[DarthG8Rv2]

I received this in an e-Mail , makes sense .


"IF YOU CAN'T FIX IT WITH A HAMMER,YOU'VE GOT AN ELECTRICAL PROBLEM"

WRITTEN BY A 21 YEAR OLD FEMALE

Wow, this girl has a great plan! Love the last thing she would do the best.

This was written by a 21 yr old female who gets it. It's her future she's worried about and this is how she feels about the social welfare big government state that she's being forced to live in! These solutions are just common sense in her opinion.

This was in the Waco Tribune Herald, Waco , TX , Nov 18, 2011

PUT ME IN CHARGE . . .

Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho's, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.

Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal legations. Then, we'll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, or smoke, then get a job.

Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your home" will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.

In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a "government" job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the "common good.."

Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. Before you say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin their "self esteem," consider that it wasn't that long ago that taking someone else's money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.

If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.

AND While you are on Gov't subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes, that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov't welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.

[Swampmaster]

A good start on correcting the problem would be to cut out the "reward" for birthing children out of wedlock. You get X amount of money to help you

Why should you get a penny of taxpayer money for having a child??

[wargunfan]

I received this in an e-Mail , makes sense .


"IF YOU CAN'T FIX IT WITH A HAMMER,YOU'VE GOT AN ELECTRICAL PROBLEM"

WRITTEN BY A 21 YEAR OLD FEMALE

Wow, this girl has a great plan! Love the last thing she would do the best.

This was written by a 21 yr old female who gets it. It's her future she's worried about and this is how she feels about the social welfare big government state that she's being forced to live in! These solutions are just common sense in her opinion.

This was in the Waco Tribune Herald, Waco , TX , Nov 18, 2011

PUT ME IN CHARGE . . .

Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho's, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.

Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal legations. Then, we'll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, or smoke, then get a job.

Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your home" will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.

In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a "government" job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the "common good.."

Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. Before you say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin their "self esteem," consider that it wasn't that long ago that taking someone else's money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.

If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.

AND While you are on Gov't subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes, that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov't welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.

When I was 11 yrs. old my dad died making my mother an instant single mother with three little boys 5, 8 and 11.
My dad had no life insurance (he was uninsurable) and we lost our home. I am here to tell you that we took not one dime in welfare money of any kind. We went to work. Even my 8 yr old little brother worked a paper route and gave the $15 per week to his mother. I worked as a bus boy in the restaurant where my mother got a job as a waitress (she was 43 at the time) I also worked an early morning paper route and at night in the concession stand of a drive in movie. We struggled, we did without but we stuck together and all of us boys became successful. We stayed in school and got good educations. We made it without welfare. My mother instilled character in us and self pity was unthinkable. That was a long time ago in an America that valued self respect and self reliance. There was no "welfare" as we know it today. We didn't need it. The sad results of current welfare programs speak for themselves. I vote for the above solutions.

[HALLGATOR]

When I was 11 yrs. old my dad died making my mother an instant single mother with three little boys 5, 8 and 11.
My dad had no life insurance (he was uninsurable) and we lost our home. I am here to tell you that we took not one dime in welfare money of any kind. We went to work. Even my 8 yr old little brother worked a paper route and gave the $15 per week to his mother. I worked as a bus boy in the restaurant where my mother got a job as a waitress (she was 43 at the time) I also worked an early morning paper route and at night in the concession stand of a drive in movie. We struggled, we did without but we stuck together and all of us boys became successful. We stayed in school and got good educations. We made it without welfare. My mother instilled character in us and self pity was unthinkable. That was a long time ago in an America that valued self respect and self reliance. There was no "welfare" as we know it today. We didn't need it. The sad results of current welfare programs speak for themselves. I vote for the above solutions.

That's a very admirable accomplishment for all of your family. I didn't have it as hard as you but I worked tobacco at a young age; then got an early morning paper route a day before I turned 13. Went to work at Winn-Dixie at age 16. My sister worked as did my younger sister when she came along. It was just a normal part of life during that time for kids to get jobs.

My mother has a lady that helps take care of her who is a single mother. This woman also has another job and her son comes over and does yard work or anything else we need him to do. He is a hard worker and also plays football. She keeps a tight reign on her kids with one now going into the service with the intention of becoming a surgeon. We know it's hard on her at times and try to help her in other small ways but the biggest thing is she is not sitting around watching the world go by.

[rpmGator]

Thought the thread might be on this state, where Republicans gave us socialized home insurance and charge people who don't even own property on thier car insurance, to subsidize Donald Trumps beach front house insurance.

Might want to start in our own party before we worry about the other side doing the same things.

Socialized house insurance for the rich is ok, socialized health insurance for the poor is not.

[wargunfan]

That's a very admirable accomplishment for all of your family. I didn't have it as hard as you but I worked tobacco at a young age; then got an early morning paper route a day before I turned 13. Went to work at Winn-Dixie at age 16. My sister worked as did my younger sister when she came along. It was just a normal part of life during that time for kids to get jobs.

My mother has a lady that helps take care of her who is a single mother. This woman also has another job and her son comes over and does yard work or anything else we need him to do. He is a hard worker and also plays football. She keeps a tight reign on her kids with one now going into the service with the intention of becoming a surgeon. We know it's hard on her at times and try to help her in other small ways but the biggest thing is she is not sitting around watching the world go by.

The common denominator here is instilling character and the importance of getting an education in children at an early age. Those who have no character won't instill it in their children and the welfare beat goes on and on. It's probably too late to save this culture.

[northgagator]

That's a very admirable accomplishment for all of your family. I didn't have it as hard as you but I worked tobacco at a young age; then got an early morning paper route a day before I turned 13. Went to work at Winn-Dixie at age 16. My sister worked as did my younger sister when she came along. It was just a normal part of life during that time for kids to get jobs.

Worked Tobacco? I n a way I can relate to that. As a teenager in the late 60's i had some friends get shipped to their grand parents tobacco farm during the summer. They hated it with a passion and made the most of their education.

[HALLGATOR]

Worked Tobacco? I n a way I can relate to that. As a teenager in the late 60's i had some friends get shipped to their grand parents tobacco farm during the summer. They hated it with a passion and made the most of their education.

The first time I recall working in it was when we helped replant a field by hand. Then I handed to the stringers a few times during the summer while staying with my grandmother. I started picking/cropping it as a teenage and hated every day I ever spent in a tobacco patch. Six dollars a day and that was being picked up before daylight and working till the evening.

[lacuna]

Loved this e-mail. Thanks, Darth.


This was in the Waco Tribune Herald, Waco , TX , Nov 18, 2011

PUT ME IN CHARGE . . .

... If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.

AND While you are on Gov't subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes, that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov't welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.

Sensible advice and commentary all through it but the last part is slam dunk, no brainer truth.

I have a friend who is severely disabled. She has been crippled and deformed with the worst case of rheumatoid arthritis I have ever seen, and receiving SSDI for approximately 10 years. I don't begrudge her this check but I admit it galls me when I hear her say she can't do or buy something before the end of the month when she "gets paid." I have never said anything to her about her turn of phrase but grit my teeth and likely wince. Have not retorted but sorely tempted to ask, "----, what are you being paid for?"

In my mind, someone who lives in Section 8 housing, is eligible for food stamps (and uses them), and relies on the generosity of others - isn't being paid. People are paid for what they produce. This person, and too many just like her, is a charity case living on public assistance. No vote.

I feel better now.

[gatorpa]

Our society used to vilify young moms....it led to exploitation, abuse and forcing young mothers to put their child up for adoption.

We may have swung too far in the opposite direction, but to go back isn't the answer either.

Following your train of thought here, should society vilify young men and their behavior?

YES

[dynogator]

The common denominator here is instilling character and the importance of getting an education in children at an early age. Those who have no character won't instill it in their children and the welfare beat goes on and on. It's probably too late to save this culture.

The percentage of the US population on welfare is about 4.1%. Of those, almost all of them work (requirement of welfare.) Even if everyone of the 4.1% is a horrible parent (ridiculous assumption) you figure they're going to take down our entire culture?

I have more faith in the American people, I guess.

[dynogator]

In my mind, someone who lives in Section 8 housing, is eligible for food stamps (and uses them), and relies on the generosity of others - isn't being paid. People are paid for what they produce. This person, and too many just like her, is a charity case living on public assistance. No vote.

I feel better now.

Well, no one can ever call you a liberal again.

[lacuna]

Well, no one can ever call you a liberal again.

The assumptions of people who have pigeon holed me a "liberal" say more about them than me. The strident, self absorbed cons who make those assumptions can't understand or tolerate the fact an independent freethinking libertarian could possibly criticize a conservative/teapartier and be anything other than a liberal/leftist.

To quote one of the more strident ones: "Pitiful"

[gatorpa]

The percentage of the US population on welfare is about 4.1%. Of those, almost all of them work (requirement of welfare.) Even if everyone of the 4.1% is a horrible parent (ridiculous assumption) you figure they're going to take down our entire culture?

I have more faith in the American people, I guess.

Any link to the 4% number? I can't believe all the billions only goes to 4% of the population.

[MichiGator2002]

Any link to the 4% number? I can't believe all the billions only goes to 4% of the population.

My instinct is that the number refers to a specific program out of the almost innumerably overlapping and redundant programs for this or that.

[dynogator]

Slap whatever political label on it you want, but denying someone the right to vote because they're forced by a disease to rely on public assistance strikes me as cruel and punitive.

[dynogator]

Any link to the 4% number? I can't believe all the billions only goes to 4% of the population.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

[lacuna]

Slap whatever political label on it you want, but denying someone the right to vote because they're forced by a disease to rely on public assistance strikes me as cruel and punitive.

It's harsh but I wouldn't call it cruel or punitive. The truism that democracy is doomed when the people learn they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury has been attributed to several different sources but whoever spoke it, spoke truth. We are doomed.

I don't think it is possible for such a change to be implemented as law before this nation self destructs, but I would hope the lessons will be remembered in the future.

[mocgator]

That sounds good but it really doesn't flesh out any answers. Do you propose to just cut off all of the money in one fell swoop, and if you do how far have you looked into the future? Actions always have consequences no matter who the actions are implemented by.

Very very simple human nature. If you subsidize poor behavior and decision making.... You get poor behavior and decision making. Wow. What a surprise.

Cap welfare and WIC. If you can't pay for your kid it's child abuse. I'd rather spend a ton in quality foster care than on thelosers having kids for the money. Kids that will in large percentages be a drag on our society. It's simple math.

[gatorpa]

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

Funny in the definition of welfare the link lists "food stamps", then in the body it cites 46 million on food stamps, then list % of US on welfare as 4.1%. Sorry but 46.7 million divide by 300 million is about 15%, not 4.1%.

"Welfare is the organized public or private social services for the assistance of disadvantaged groups. Aid could include general Welfare payments, health care through Medicaid, food stamps, special payments for pregnant women and young mothers, and federal and state housing benefits"

It also notes 4.5 million Americans on welfare, Hell there are prob 4.3 million people on Medicaid in NY state alone. Talk about massaging the data.

[DarthG8Rv2]

Slap whatever political label on it you want, but denying someone the right to vote because they're forced by a disease to rely on public assistance strikes me as cruel and punitive.


In the past , only Land Owners could vote . I think this should be reinstituted .

[HALLGATOR]

Very very simple human nature. If you subsidize poor behavior and decision making.... You get poor behavior and decision making. Wow. What a surprise.

Cap welfare and WIC. If you can't pay for your kid it's child abuse. I'd rather spend a ton in quality foster care than on thelosers having kids for the money. Kids that will in large percentages be a drag on our society. It's simple math.

Don't we already cap both welfare and WIC? Do you really think the complex social issues which have arisen due welfare and the way it was implemented are so easily solved? As I stated earlier I wonder how far down the road you have really looked.

[gatorpa]

In the past , only Land Owners could vote . I think this should be reinstituted .

I could agree to only limiting it to citizens who pay income taxes.

[theorangebluewinagain]

Pay welfar women $2500 to have tubal ligations.

[rajinGator]

I agree with you 100%.

The current answers create dependency, entitlement mentality, illiteracy, high incarceration rates, sh!t schools, little to no opportunity, high crime rates...

The future for these economic slaves is children and grandchildren living in the same sh!tholes, in the same sh!t schools and continued generations of illiteracy and ignorance.

Actions have consequences see Detroit, see Chicago...the consequences of today's lunacy are decades and generations of the hopeless souls who know no better and live hand to mouth on subsidy, low employment or crime with little to no chance at upward mobility. They represent a guarantied voting block for their Masters who give them morsels to live on while the real buying power diminishes daily. Those who claim to love and care create an insidious system of control and slums. Answers? that is a joke. Today"s Answers are the cause of the problem. With love like that who needs hate? Brave new world indeed!

Boom

What we need and IMO beginning to see are younger, truer conservatives who aren't intimidated by the media and can articulate this message. Not these sappy Pubs with low convictions and understanding of the conservative ideology we've seen the last 20 years.

[GatorNorth]

I could agree to only limiting it to citizens who pay income taxes.

Then I'm glad you're not our President. There's more that goes into a democracy than paying income taxes. You just want to disenfranchise the working poor.

[dynogator]

I could agree to only limiting it to citizens who pay income taxes.

Super idea, pa. I think the Republicans should put this plank in their platform ASAP. Give the convicts a lot of company.

[brainstorm]

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

Don't know the source for this site but there were some very interesting (and disturbing) stats:

Total Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than an $8 per hour job - 40
Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than a $12 per hour job - 7
Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than the average salary of a U.S. Teacher - 9

Top 10 Hourly Wage Equivalent Welfare States in U.S.
State Hourly Wage Equivalent
Hawaii $17.50
Alaska $15.48
Massachusetts $14.66
Connecticut $14.23
Washington, D.C. $13.99
New York $13.13
New Jersey $12.55
Rhode Island $12.55
California $11.59
Virginia $11.11

[GatorNorth]

Don't know the source for this site but there were some very interesting (and disturbing) stats:

Total Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than an $8 per hour job - 40
Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than a $12 per hour job - 7
Number of U.S. States where Welfare pays more than the average salary of a U.S. Teacher - 9

Top 10 Hourly Wage Equivalent Welfare States in U.S.
State Hourly Wage Equivalent
Hawaii $17.50
Alaska $15.48
Massachusetts $14.66
Connecticut $14.23
Washington, D.C. $13.99
New York $13.13
New Jersey $12.55
Rhode Island $12.55
California $11.59
Virginia $11.11

The teacher comp is just depressing.

[dynogator]

It's from the Departments of Health and Human Resources and Commerce, and the Cato Institute.