Welfare reform in PA moving in the right direction, I hope. (Pittsburgh: lower-class, insurance)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This bill is nothing more than a handout to whatever drug testing company lobbied for it. We will be spending far more in taxes drug testing everyone than we will save kicking a few drug users off the books.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raffy71
It fascinates me that Americans get so upset by social welfare, which is a relatively small expense, but largely ignore the billions of dollars spent on corporate welfare.
Agreed. Our tax dollars are wasted in far more egregious and disturbing ways, but rarely do we see a heated, six page poo-flinging contest over them. Sad.
Which is precisely why I view it as a legitimate question why African-Americans have had a different experience in the United States than other "minorities". And I don't think you can ignore slavery, Jim Crow, and ongoing racism when answering that question.
I don't buy that those reasons hold much water today; maybe if we were talking about 1920 Alabama, but not 2010 Pennsylvania. Is there some latent racism, most definately yes on the individual level, but no more so than with any other minority group.
Just looking at the tradional black areas of our own city & it shows that these areas were once much more successful and vibrant then they are today. Unfortunately the plight of illicit drug use, in particular crack, was much more of a detrimental factor in cancelling any gains among the african american community which in all ways was shrinking the gap between black and white (be it income levels or educational test scores) until this occurred.
The stats regarding drug use and recieving welfare payments were 20% of reciepients admitting to illegal drug use. Apprently the only state that has done an official study is Washington, and the percentage there was 33%.
No distinction was made by race, and I know first hand that a white hillbilly is just as likely to be shooting up meth as an inner city african american is to be smoking crack; so I'm not saying this is a black problem, just that it was most detrimental to their community, & no member of any race should be recieving public funding to help support his habit while making no strides to turn their life to better anyone.
'suote=UKyank;18934829]I don't buy that those reasons hold much water today; maybe if we were talking about 1920 Alabama, but not 2010 Pennsylvania. Is there some latent racism, most definately yes on the individual level, but no more so than with any other minority group.
Just looking at the tradional black areas of our own city & it shows that these areas were once much more successful and vibrant then they are today. Unfortunately the plight of illicit drug use, in particular crack, was much more of a detrimental factor in cancelling any gains among the african american community which in all ways was shrinking the gap between black and white (be it income levels or educational test scores) until this occurred.
The stats regarding drug use and recieving welfare payments were 20% of reciepients admitting to illegal drug use. Apprently the only state that has done an official study is Washington, and the percentage there was 33%.
No distinction was made by race, and I know first hand that a white hillbilly is just as likely to be shooting up meth as an inner city african american is to be smoking crack; so I'm not saying this is a black problem, just that it was most detrimental to their community, & no member of any race should be recieving public funding to help support his habit while making no strides to turn their life to better anyone.[/quote]
Several of your remarks are incorrect. I am not sure where alot of you get this information. The black community prospered in the 1990's by leeps and bounds due to the Clinton administration. More black americans elevated themselfes to the middle class and beyond during the crack epidemic. Crack never cancelled any gains blacks made since the 1990's. The problem with the innercity is most of the successful black families moved to the suburbs. This left the poorer black residents to endure the devestating effects of the crack epidemic. Black americans are wealthier and more educated now than at any time in US history. Please don't allow negative media images distort your reallity.
For the last 20 years or so, most crack smokers are white people. They come to the inner city to buy crack from children who are between the ages of 15-18. They then retreat back to the suburbs to smoke. Black crack smokers cannot sustain the business. We have communities like Larimer and Homewood that lost 30% of their population in one decade.
During the 1990's Welfare to Work legislation, it was determined that the average welfare recipient was rural and white not urban and black. Once this was revealed (BET News) The federal government was not as brutal to the much needed program. How can you have a welfare to work program for rural white families when there are no jobs to be found (WV,AL)? Poor rural whites and urban blacks suffered from the same issues. All of the well paying jobs moved to the suburbs (with the white people). If you are poor (white or black) and do not own a vehicle,this coupled with public transportation not servicing these job growth centers, how can they elevate themselves?
Several of your remarks are incorrect. I am not sure where alot of you get this information. The black community prospered in the 1990's by leeps and bounds due to the Clinton administration. More black americans elevated themselfes to the middle class and beyond during the crack epidemic. Crack never cancelled any gains blacks made since the 1990's. The problem with the innercity is most of the successful black families moved to the suburbs. This left the poorer black residents to endure the devestating effects of the crack epidemic. Black americans are wealthier and more educated now than at any time in US history. Please don't allow negative media images distort your reallity.
For the last 20 years or so, most crack smokers are white people. They come to the inner city to buy crack from children who are between the ages of 15-18. They then retreat back to the suburbs to smoke. Black crack smokers cannot sustain the business. We have communities like Larimer and Homewood that lost 30% of their population in one decade.
During the 1990's Welfare to Work legislation, it was determined that the average welfare recipient was rural and white not urban and black. Once this was revealed (BET News) The federal government was not as brutal to the much needed program. How can you have a welfare to work program for rural white families when there are no jobs to be found (WV,AL)? Poor rural whites and urban blacks suffered from the same issues. All of the well paying jobs moved to the suburbs (with the white people). If you are poor (white or black) and do not own a vehicle,this coupled with public transportation not servicing these job growth centers, how can they elevate themselves?
The information regarding black/white economic gap was in a paper presented by economist Steven Levitt, perhaps it wasnt correct, I did not fact check it. Further I never said that most crack use was by blacks, but rather that the introduction and subsequent use of crack had a more detrimental effect on that community than comparable white communites. Either way, if someone of any race is using drugs they should also not be recieving payments from tax payers either.
If one truly wants to elevate themselves and get off the system there are services at their disposal to do so. Its not like someone recieving public welfare assistance is living in abject poverty with no options whatsoever available to them.
Though maybe it should be closer to abject poverty then you wouldnt have people using their access card to purchase brand name food at giant eagle. Public assistance should provide you with the ability to have the most basic of necessities and absolutely nothing else, apart from things like job training.
The information regarding black/white economic gap was in a paper presented by economist Steven Levitt, perhaps it wasnt correct, I did not fact check it. Further I never said that most crack use was by blacks, but rather that the introduction and subsequent use of crack had a more detrimental effect on that community than comparable white communites. Either way, if someone of any race is using drugs they should also not be recieving payments from tax payers either.
If one truly wants to elevate themselves and get off the system there are services at their disposal to do so. Its not like someone recieving public welfare assistance is living in abject poverty with no options whatsoever available to them.
Though maybe it should be closer to abject poverty then you wouldnt have people using their access card to purchase brand name food at giant eagle. Public assistance should provide you with the ability to have the most basic of necessities and absolutely nothing else, apart from things like job training.
I am not questioning the black/white economic gap. This gap will not be closed anytime soon due to the fact that black americans have to play catch up. Economically speaking, we are a few hundred years behind. You stated that crack cancelled any gains that blacks made up to the 1990's crack epidemic. This is simply not true.
Poor people are limited in so may ways. They should not be limited to the basics when it comes to food.
I am not questioning the black/white economic gap. This gap will not be closed anytime soon due to the fact that black americans have to play catch up. Economically speaking, we are a few hundred years behind. You stated that crack cancelled any gains that blacks made up to the 1990's crack epidemic. This is simply not true.
Poor people are limited in so may ways. They should not be limited to the basics when it comes to food.
The entire thesis of the Levitt paper was that the crack epidemic cancelled the gains made by the African American community (though he uses the 1980s as the time frame) I'll post a link when I have a chance, but it should be readily available to find online.
And I agree poor people should be able to choose whatever they want, i am distinguishing those on the receiving end of public welfare payments should most definitely be limited on what they can use their access card on. It does no one any good for them to buy their kid an expensive sugar laden drink. Again, they should be given the bare minimum for survival - more of incentive to get off the program.
I am not questioning the black/white economic gap. This gap will not be closed anytime soon due to the fact that black americans have to play catch up. Economically speaking, we are a few hundred years behind. You stated that crack cancelled any gains that blacks made up to the 1990's crack epidemic. This is simply not true.
A hundred years ago, European immigrants particularly from eastern and southern Europe were at the bottom of the economic ladder.
In some ways they were in a worse position that African Americans.
Many of the immigrants, most notoriously Sicilians, but many others as well were involved in organized crime activities.
None of these ethnic groups are any intrinsically any better than blacks or other ethnic groups.
I think one of the main problems is that the modern welfare state makes it too convenient, too easy for too many to get into the rut of poverty. The modern American welfare state actually encourages long term dependency with the long waiting lists for such valuable benefits as subsidized housing and child care. I think that is upside down, these programs need to be more positioned to help people transition to more self sufficiency instead of a reward for waiting it out.
It doesn't have anything to do with ethnicity, but its just that the blacks were at the bottom of the food chain when this upside down incentives took hold in the 60s and 70s.
It has nothing to do with my emotions: I just know the relevant Fourth Amendment caselaw. The case you should look at is Marchwinski v. Howard, 113 F.Supp.2d 1134 (E.D. Mich. 2000), affirmed by the Sixth Circuit, in which the federal courts struck down a Michigan law requiring TANF recipients to submit to random drug tests as a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Marchwinski court was following the Supreme Court case Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305 (1997), in which the Supreme Court struck down a Georgia law requiring drug tests for all candidates for state office. As these cases make clear, there are only limited special circumstances in which a government can require drug tests without probable cause, and providing welfare does not fall within those special circumstances.
This is what p*sses me off more than anything. Politicians should be penalized when they pass laws that have already been stuck down by the courts. This law will be overturned the day it is signed.
A hundred years ago, European immigrants particularly from eastern and southern Europe were at the bottom of the economic ladder.
In some ways they were in a worse position that African Americans.
Many of the immigrants, most notoriously Sicilians, but many others as well were involved in organized crime activities.
None of these ethnic groups are any intrinsically any better than blacks or other ethnic groups.
I think one of the main problems is that the modern welfare state makes it too convenient, too easy for too many to get into the rut of poverty. The modern American welfare state actually encourages long term dependency with the long waiting lists for such valuable benefits as subsidized housing and child care. I think that is upside down, these programs need to be more positioned to help people transition to more self sufficiency instead of a reward for waiting it out.
It doesn't have anything to do with ethnicity, but its just that the blacks were at the bottom of the food chain when this upside down incentives took hold in the 60s and 70s.
European immigrants eastern or otherwise never had it worst than black americans. Never. Europeans were brought to this country to work in the industrial north even though millions of poverty stricken blacks resided in the south. During the great black migration (1920-1970) from the south to the north, european immigrants were very hostile and violent toward black natural born americans. Imagine.
I don't buy that those reasons hold much water today; maybe if we were talking about 1920 Alabama, but not 2010 Pennsylvania. Is there some latent racism, most definately yes on the individual level, but no more so than with any other minority group.
So convergence following immigration waves typically takes place over several generations. The Civil Rights Era happened in the 1960s, not the 1920s--that is only about 40 years ago. And unfortunately, I think there is still a decent-sized minority of racists around.
That said, I will once again agree that things are going slower than they should despite those factors, and I think that is primarily because it happens that in that period to date, we have experience a general slowdown in dealing with concentrated poverty in the United States.
Quote:
Just looking at the tradional black areas of our own city & it shows that these areas were once much more successful and vibrant then they are today. Unfortunately the plight of illicit drug use, in particular crack, was much more of a detrimental factor in cancelling any gains among the african american community which in all ways was shrinking the gap between black and white (be it income levels or educational test scores) until this occurred.
I think you are looking at symptoms here, not causes. We know that where majority-black neighborhoods are also middle-to-upper class neighborhoods, those neighborhoods can be very successful (this is less obvious in Pittsburgh because we don't really have much in the way of such neighborhoods, but this can be observed in other U.S cities). So I think it is a very good bet that if we were doing a better job dealing with concentrated poverty (among black people and otherwise), you would see more successful neighborhoods, less drug abuse, and so on. And in fact that is a global experience: concentrated poverty leads to disinvested neighborhoods, higher crime rates, higher drug and alcohol abuse rates, and so on pretty much everywhere in the world. It is not unique to black Americans.
Quote:
so I'm not saying this is a black problem, just that it was most detrimental to their community, & no member of any race should be recieving public funding to help support his habit while making no strides to turn their life to better anyone.
I'm just repeating myself, but I really think you are approaching this from the wrong direction. The only real way to reduce the amount of public funds that end up being used to abuse illegal drugs or alcohol is to reduce the amount of illegal drug and alcohol abuse. And doing that requires doing more, not less, to deal with concentrated poverty.
This is a symbolic gesture designed for cheap political gain, meaning it isn't a serious attempt to address any of these issues. And to be frank, allowing politicians to distract us with symbolic gestures while they get away with not seriously addressing these issues is a large part of why the United States in recent decades has not seen much improvement in these areas.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
