Civics Lesson 101: The War on Poverty

[P@triot]

All that does is address the symptoms, rather than the root cause.

The root cause is philosophical, not that I harbor any illusion that you can comprehend this.

So someone with no basic education, trying to raise 3 kids alone and working two jobs should give up her refrigerator and her mode of transportation to and from those jobs because she hasn't "earned" it? Gotcha. I'm sure such a mother sits around wringing her hands that she should take a more "philosophical" approach to life.

Why does someone with no education to out and have 3 children? Because they are irresponsible, selfish assholes. And rather than force them to grow up, you enable their ridiculous behavior by making excuses for them and then handing them someone else's fruits on a silver platter.

 

[Foxfyre]

The root cause is philosophical, not that I harbor any illusion that you can comprehend this.

So someone with no basic education, trying to raise 3 kids alone and working two jobs should give up her refrigerator and her mode of transportation to and from those jobs because she hasn't "earned" it? Gotcha. I'm sure such a mother sits around wringing her hands that she should take a more "philosophical" approach to life.

Why does someone with no education to out and have 3 children? Because they are irresponsible, selfish assholes. And rather than force them to grow up, you enable their ridiculous behavior by making excuses for them and then handing them someone else's fruits on a silver platter.

I can't go with the irresponsible, selfish asshole though. I work with too many of these families to see them that way. But they have been poorly served by a society and culture that rewards irresponsibility, that encourages single parenthood and rewards failure, that promotes a concept that if you are needy in any way, you are entitled to have society remedy that while promoting a point of view that resents the successful and prosperous and thinks the rest of society is entitled to what they have earned.

 

[Listening]

The root cause is philosophical, not that I harbor any illusion that you can comprehend this.

So someone with no basic education, trying to raise 3 kids alone and working two jobs should give up her refrigerator and her mode of transportation to and from those jobs because she hasn't "earned" it? Gotcha. I'm sure such a mother sits around wringing her hands that she should take a more "philosophical" approach to life.

Why does someone with no education to out and have 3 children? Because they are irresponsible, selfish assholes. And rather than force them to grow up, you enable their ridiculous behavior by making excuses for them and then handing them someone else's fruits on a silver platter.

I have to wonder if she thought raising two alone was easy. But the third caught her off guard ? That or daddy left her....at which point I have a different solution. Just askin.

 

[Foxfyre]

So someone with no basic education, trying to raise 3 kids alone and working two jobs should give up her refrigerator and her mode of transportation to and from those jobs because she hasn't "earned" it? Gotcha. I'm sure such a mother sits around wringing her hands that she should take a more "philosophical" approach to life.

Why does someone with no education to out and have 3 children? Because they are irresponsible, selfish assholes. And rather than force them to grow up, you enable their ridiculous behavior by making excuses for them and then handing them someone else's fruits on a silver platter.

I have to wonder if she thought raising two alone was easy. But the third caught her off guard ? That or daddy left her....at which point I have a different solution. Just askin.

We live in a society in which the single mom is rewarded for having the third kid, and the fourth, and the fifth. And yes some are having those kids on purpose because each one extends the time the single mom can expect society to support her.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Why does someone with no education to out and have 3 children? Because they are irresponsible, selfish assholes. And rather than force them to grow up, you enable their ridiculous behavior by making excuses for them and then handing them someone else's fruits on a silver platter.

I have to wonder if she thought raising two alone was easy. But the third caught her off guard ? That or daddy left her....at which point I have a different solution. Just askin.

We live in a society in which the single mom is rewarded for having the third kid, and the fourth, and the fifth. And yes some are having those kids on purpose because each one extends the time the single mom can expect society to support her.

And in my mind, that is wrong, it's lazy. Having kids should be a challenge to take on, not a cash cow to take advantage of. If all the woman sees her children as is dollar signs, she has no business having those children in the first place. She should support her children, and teach her children to support themselves come adulthood, not cry in unison like cluster of baby chicks waiting for mother government to bring home the worm. I'm sorry, but I find such a practice appalling. You don't need rewards for having children, the children ARE the rewards.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have to wonder if she thought raising two alone was easy. But the third caught her off guard ? That or daddy left her....at which point I have a different solution. Just askin.

We live in a society in which the single mom is rewarded for having the third kid, and the fourth, and the fifth. And yes some are having those kids on purpose because each one extends the time the single mom can expect society to support her.

And in my mind, that is wrong, it's lazy. Having kids should be a challenge to take on, not a cash cow to take advantage of. If all the woman sees her children as is dollar signs, she has no business having those children in the first place. She should support her children, and teach her children to support themselves come adulthood, not cry in unison like cluster of baby chicks waiting for mother government to bring home the worm. I'm sorry, but I find such a practice appalling. You don't need rewards for having children, the children ARE the rewards.

That is why, in normal times, it was more compassionate and humane to remove children from the home if the mother could not or would not support them and the father could not be identified or required to do so. Now there is every incentive for guys to bail out on the pregnant mom because society will then support her and the kids until the kids can reach majority. And as long as she can keep punching them out at intervals, she can extend that support for decades. By the time the last kid reaches majority there will be plenty of grandkids she can be the guardian of and thereby live off the public dole her entire life. This is not a character flaw or does not make her a bad person. It is the way society currently teaches, even encourages people to be. Children born into such situations rarely learn there is any other logical way of life.

 

[Care4all]

TANF Eligibility Requirements

In order to be determined eligible to receive TANF benefits, the following criteria must be met by the members of the assistance unit (family):
Age: A child must be less than 18 years of age (19 years if s/he is a full-time student).
Application for other benefits: A TANF applicant/recipient must apply for and accept other benefits (Unemployment Compensation, Workman’s Compensation, Supplemental Security Insurance (SSI), Child Support, etc) for which s/he may be eligible.
Citizenship: A recipient must be a citizen of the U.S. or a lawful resident alien.
Deprivation: A child must be deprived due to:

1. Continued absence from the home of at least one parent
2. Physical or mental incapacity of at least one parent
3. Death of a parent

In a two parent family in which both parents are able-bodied, deprivation is established if one parent has a “recent connection to the workforce.”
Enumeration: All assistance unit members must have or apply for a Social Security number.
School Attendance: All children ages 6 through 17 who have not graduated from high school or who have not received a certificate of high school equivalency must attend school and have satisfactory attendance.
Immunization: All preschool children must be immunized.
Income: An assistance unit’s countable, net income must be below certain established limits that are adjusted for the number of persons in the AU. A family must meet the financial criteria to receive TANF. For example, a family of three (mother and two children) must have a gross income below $784 a month and countable assets of less than $1,000.
Lifetime Limits: Receipt of cash assistance is limited to 48 months in a lifetime. The limit may be extended if it is determined that an extension is justified due to certain hardships, including domestic violence and physical or mental incapacity.
Paternity: The AU must cooperate in the establishment of paternity. The paternity of a child must be established at application and whenever a child is added to an active case.
Work Requirement: All adult recipients have a work requirement, and are required to participate in work activities and training for at least 30 hours weekly. These work activities help recipients gain the experience needed to find a job and become self-sufficient.
Cooperation with Office of Child Support Services is a requirement for receiving TANF benefits.


Note: A family receiving TANF for ten months might not receive increased cash assistance for the birth of additional children.

 

[Foxfyre]

The rules and how benefits are applied vary from state to state. TANF is not the only benefit made available to low income single parent families.

•States have developed widely varying approaches to time limits. States have broad flexibility in designing time-limit policies, in large part because the federal time limit does not apply to state-funded benefits. Currently, 40 states have time limits that can result in the termination of families’ welfare benefits; 17 of those states have limits of fewer than 60 months. However, nearly half the national welfare caseload is in states that either have no time limit (2 states) or a time limit that reduces or modifies benefits when the limit is reached (8 states and the District of Columbia).

•All states allow exceptions to time limits, but the specific policies and their implementation vary. All states allow exemptions (which stop the time-limit clock), extensions, or both. Exemptions are most common for “child only” cases (which account for about one-third of all welfare cases nationwide and are not subject to time limits in any state) and for recipients with medical problems. In many states, recipients who comply with work requirements but are unable to find jobs can receive extensions, although states define and assess compliance in different ways. As a result, some states routinely grant extensions to recipients reaching time limits, while others close most of these cases.

•Nationally, about 231,000 families have reached a time limit; at least 93,000 families have had their welfare case closed due to a time limit, and another 38,000 have had their benefits reduced. Most of the case closures have been in a few states with time limits of fewer than 60 months. As of December 2001, families had begun reaching the federal time limit in fewer than half the states, and relatively few families had reached the 60-month limit in those states; most recipients do not remain on welfare for 60 consecutive months.

•The circumstances of families who left welfare due to time limits are diverse and depend on state policies. In some states, most recipients whose cases have been closed due to time limits were already working while on welfare; in other states, time-limit leavers are more heterogeneous. Most studies find that time-limit leavers are struggling financially, but they are not consistently experiencing more or fewer hardships than families who left welfare for other reasons. Many time-limit leavers continue to receive Food Stamps and other assistance.

Though a simple idea, time limits raise a host of complex issues in practice. Many experts believe that time limits have played a key role in reshaping welfare, but the knowledge base about this key policy change is still thin. Few families have reached the federal time limit, and it is too early to draw conclusions about how states will respond as more families reach limits or how families will fare without benefits over the long-term, in varying economic conditions.
State Welfare Time-Limit Policies and Their Effects on Families | mdrc

 

[Listening]

With no guarantee that the numbers are necessarily accurate, study the following chart:

President Johnson announced his landmark "War on Poverty" at the State of the Union Address in January, 1964.

President Obama will probably mention something akin to poverty at his State of the Union Address 47 years later in January, 2011.

So what do the numbers tell you?

Government is necessary to deal with poverty?

Government does a good job in addressing poverty?

Government makes little or no difference in reducing poverty and could have saved a shipload of the people's money--make that mega trillions--if it had not initiated a 'war on poverty'?

Government actually contributes to poverty?

Or something in between?

Or none of the above?

In framing your conclusions, bear in mind that the above graphic does not include the changing definition of 'poverty' over the years, does not highlight the temporarily 'poor' due to joblessness, etc., and does not illustrate factors such as 12 to 20 million additional undocumented people since 1980 being included in the equation.

Let's redo this one.