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.
Only sender/receiver names were redacted. No data was redacted. All data is fully sourced. Are you unable to understand that?
I see. So that's not necessary for us to know. We'll know when they desire it. Please spare me your justifications. Either you post an unredacted memo, or stop trying to justify it. Redacted means there are no sources to question. Redacted means there is someone who wishes not to be known (in this case at least two individuals). How the h_ll do you think anyone is going to believe that redacted memos are going to contain untampered information?
Now let's drop this, you're getting quite ridiculous and absurd, and are apparently incapable of comprehending the significance of a redacted document.
I see. So that's not necessary for us to know. We'll know when they desire it. Please spare me your justifications. Either you post an unredacted memo, or stop trying to justify it.
The names of senders/receivers are insignificant. What matters is THE ACTUAL DATA INCLUDED IN THE REPORT, which is NOT redacted and IS fully sourced and footnoted.
You're just unhappy with sender/receiver redactions because the actual cited and sourced FACTS don't match your misguided beliefs. You have to consider the fact that calling out any social welfare receiver(s) endangers politicians' elected positions, so politicians are ALL about obfuscation if there's a chance of losing taker-class voters.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,298 posts, read 14,105,991 times
Reputation: 8104
Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980 Did you (or anyone else) ever answer this question? I'm curious to hear your thoughts.
...
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
STOP giving parents extra benefits and services for each additional child, and instead have them EARN their public assistance instead of just handing it to them. There are community services they could perform. Could go a long way towards solving their cultural norm of irresponsibility problems.
But then we come back to the problem of what to do with the children. They can't be simply left alone in the home to fend for themselves. If the mother is sent off to work, the kids have to be put into child care for that time. But the costs of childcare are astronomical, so that workfare actually costs MORE than straight welfare. Chances are that the mother couldn't afford it on a minimum wage job, which is about all they can get, so society has to pick up the slack.
One thing that many people seem to forget is that even a welfare mother IS working, and not at a particularly easy job. Someone has to stay with the kids 24/7, and it's actually most efficient, least costly, to have the mother do it.
Just as I suspected having read this report previously
From the report,
However, 33 states recorded birth rates for women on public assistance
statistically different from the national average for women on public assistance (Figure 8).
Women receiving public assistance in Texas, Iowa, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Alaska, Nebraska, Utah, and New Mexico had higher than average fertility rates for women on public assistance. Women who were receiving public assistance in New Hampshire, Delaware, Vermont, Alabama, New Jersey, New York, and California were less likely to have a birth than national average for women receiving public assistance
One of the first things one learns in any social science class is that correlation does not prove causality. For your argument to hold true, welfare acts as an incentive to become pregnant, then we should see this wide geographical variance in birthrates. Another glaring problem with your argument is that TANF recipients are also younger and less educated than the general population so a recitation of the raw numbers that doesn't control for age or income tells us little to even infer that TANF acts as an incentive to have children. Further study after study have found that their is no correlation between family size and welfare benefits even in states where their are caps on on TANF benefits based upon the number of children.
A few other points.
As I pointed out earlier, even your graph showed that all birthrates have been decreasing so that even accepting the idea that recipient birthrates hare 3 times the national average, the aggregate number of births is still less than previously.
Nearly half of all TANF recipients go to children with no adults as program recipients which means that they are disabled, underemployed or enrolled in a welfare to work program or in the care of an ineligible relative or caretaker.
As I also pointed out, the case load for TANF recipients which was falling rapidly post the enactment of the 1996 welfare reforms experienced a 16% increase as a direct result of the recession of 2008.
One last point, the average TANF recipient stays enrolled for 12 months, 1/4 for two years with 75 percent remaining for less that 2 years out of the 5 years of total eligibility.
The names of senders/receivers are insignificant. What matters is THE ACTUAL DATA INCLUDED IN THE REPORT, which is NOT redacted and IS fully sourced and footnoted.
You're just unhappy with sender/receiver redactions because the actual cited and sourced FACTS don't match your misguided beliefs. You have to consider the fact that calling out any social welfare receiver(s) endangers politicians' elected positions, so politicians are ALL about obfuscation if there's a chance of losing taker-class voters.
No, actually, I think the cited "facts" are BS, and that's why the names have been redacted off the memorandum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980 Did you (or anyone else) ever answer this question? I'm curious to hear your thoughts.
...
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
STOP giving parents extra benefits and services for each additional child, and instead have them EARN their public assistance instead of just handing it to them. There are community services they could perform. Could go a long way towards solving their cultural norm of irresponsibility problems.
But then we come back to the problem of what to do with the children. They can't be simply left alone in the home to fend for themselves.
They would be in daycare centers staffed by other public assistance recipients who are working there to EARN their benefits.
No, you didn't. You objected to the names of the sender/receiver being redacted. NONE of the facts are redacted and ALL of the facts are cited and sourced.
Nearly half of all TANF recipients go to children with no adults as program recipients which means that they are disabled, underemployed or enrolled in a welfare to work program or in the care of an ineligible relative or caretaker.
Show me a child who has been issued their own EBT card that prohibits any adult from using it.
No, you didn't. You objected to the names of the sender/receiver being redacted. NONE of the facts are redacted and ALL of the facts are cited and sourced.
Contact the CRS and request a copy.
Let me paraphrase, since there's little reasoning going on in that head of yours. The fact that names have been redacted, when it is NOT A CLASSIFIED DOCUMENT, tells me that the document is BS. What other good reason other than that the document would be classified, would there be for redacting the names, other than it has been TAMPERED WITH?
I said drop it, or produce a copy that isn't redacted.
I agree with stopping all welfare payments so long as it includes over priced and frivolious defense contracts, oil company subsudies and bank bailouts. We should also elimenate the dividends tax break as that is just a very expensive form of welfare for the wealthy.
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.
I agree
