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.
Yes, it is. It's "a 2012 analysis he requested from the Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau of the value of public assistance, student financial aid and tax credits to two hypothetical families."
If you only read the lede, you may not understand the story.
No, I read the whole thing. It was an analysis requested by a politician to support a political talking point. He set the parameters: deciding the compilation of these 2 hypothetical families. He could have chosen any qualities he wanted that would bolster his position.
Doesn't come close to meeting the definition of an academic study. Sorry.
I guess I just can't work myself up into a tizzy over $28K a year, the bulk of which feeds and houses innocent children.
Do some people abuse whatever system they can abuse? Sure. Of course. And that's unfortunate. But I would never advocate taking away such a relatively small amount of money from all the families to whom it is truly a lifesaver, simply because a few losers are content with making a long-term living off that same amount.
What do you think should happen to these "out of wedlock children"?
And should tax payers be "on the hook" for children born in wedlock?
What about children of divorce? How to categorize them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SunnyDays123
It is to an uneducated woman with no skills other than to spread her legs for loser men and pop out multiple children. The government gives her money that she should not be getting because we should not raise her damn children. People need to take responsibility for their stupidity. Tax payers should not be on the hook for her out of wedlock children.
No, I read the whole thing. It was an analysis requested by a politician to support a political talking point. He set the parameters: deciding the compilation of these 2 hypothetical families. He could have chosen any qualities he wanted that would bolster his position.
Doesn't come close to meeting the definition of an academic study. Sorry.
I didn't say it was an academic study. The WLFB is a nonpartisan government agency. I expect its output to be guided by politicians but still pretty good.
I do academic studies. They're mostly biased to the priors of the investigator. When was the last time you read a study that said, "We set out to find thus-and-such but we found the opposite"?
It's funny how nearly every post just accepts that "the welfare" falls out of the sky and is simply redirected to beneficiaries. Nobody decries the fact that this money is stolen from private citizens who earned it, and should own it, but instead have it stripped by the State to give to the undeserving who did not earn it.
Worrying about what welfare encourages is missing the point. The wealth should not be expropriated from its earners and owners in the first place.
I didn't say it was an academic study. The WLFB is a nonpartisan government agency. I expect its output to be guided by politicians but still pretty good.
I do academic studies. They're mostly biased to the priors of the investigator. When was the last time you read a study that said, "We set out to find thus-and-such but we found the opposite"?
We might be getting too nuanced here, but I agree with you that WLFB's numbers are accurate given the parameters they were asked to work under. To me, that's significantly different than, say, the legislature asking them to run analysis on "how much in total benefits the typical Wisconsin single parent receives per year" or even "what is the maximum amount in total benefits available to a single parent of 2 children."
Regardless, the article even stated only a few hundred people in the entire state received that amount because the parameters were so atypical.
And even in WI, that is not a lavish sum. If it helps someone care for their child while attending school (as established by the politician who made the request) great! That's what it's designed to do! That person can go on to a higher than minimum wage job, provide for their kids, feel good about themselves, and become a taxpayer. That's the system WORKING!
Oh. My. God. There are a lot of epic logic fails on this thread.
Logic fail #1) The idea that single motherhood is some kind of lucrative activity because of benefits. If this were true, section 8 apartment complexes and mobile home parks would be highly desirable living quarters. Last I checked, those were the areas of my town that most people avoid if at all possible.
There's no way in heck that a welfare recipient makes 28-35K a year. Certainly not net. A net income of 28K - 2300 a month - would be enough to get you into decent housing in my area (a duplex unit on my street goes for a little under $1000 a month). If true, then welfare recipients would live the lifestyle I live more or less (After savings, my living costs are about $22K a year) - and I don't see them doing that - no one in any of the rentals near me that go for ~1000 a month are on welfare...it's very clear who is and those are the mobile home parks on the bad side of town. There are people that get SNAP and/or WIC that live near me - but we're talking a couple hundred a month in subsidy for those things, not enough to quit working.
I'm not saying you can't get by on welfare but if you're going to quit working and have babies to max out benefits, you have to be satisfied with the worst housing and most unsafe areas. Maybe there are people like that but I doubt it's a GOAL for most.
Logic fail #2) That welfare enabled single mother-hood.
I don't know the intentions of the inventors of welfare, but I doubt they thought "Let's make single mother-hood attractive by paying people not to live responsibly!"
No, I'd wager they were looking at EXISTING social problems and trying to devise a helpful policy. The desire of some to implement social welfare suggests there was a social problem that needed solving. If there was no problem, there would have been no desire for the programs. Instead all of the New Deal and Great Society would have been about middle class liberal interests like free art shows in the park or something. Obviously poverty was a problem that the liberals of the time wanted to tackle. So they did not ENABLE the symptoms of poverty, although maybe we can blame them for not fixing the problem all that much.
Things were not hunky-dory before social welfare. I'm surprised no one mentioned this - but there used to be a heck of a lot more prostitution in the U.S. than there is now, because that was one of the few things struggling women could do to get by. This is what you see in poor countries without social welfare - why do you think poor countries are also ones were prostitutes are easily available?
logic fail #3) That feminism is the culprit.
As another poster said, it's news to me that New York and Ms. magazines had high circulation in the projects. Last I checked those were magazines that rich, liberal, white yuppies read.
I come from south Texas which is where you see a high incidence of teen pregnancy among the Hispanic population especially. What I heard most often from teen girls and young women who got pregnant was the mistaken idea that getting pregnant would somehow endear her guy to her and keep him close and make him love her; that a pregnancy/baby would compel him to stay with her.
There is a lot of woman-shaming on here, which is evidence enough that Steinem et al were not that successful because I've seen more than one post blaming female sexuality for welfare. People have been trying to control the sexuality of young women for thousands of years and mostly failed - you are NOT going to stop young humans from having sex. Sorry. The sex is going to happen whether you like it or not. Birth control can reduce the babies though.
Seriously, if the people who need these benefits were lucid and analytical enough to make the cost/benefit analyses that posters here have, they would have figured out ways to make much, MUCH more money than whatever the government offers. No, these people would not be model citizens in the absence of welfare. They'd turn to vice, prostitution, etc... whatever it took to get by.
Last edited by redguard57; 08-28-2015 at 11:45 PM..
It's been a while but I have some experience as a welfare caseworker and I think the basic answer to the original question is no. Single motherhood happens all the time regardless of whether there is a government check. There are two factors that I learned early on that encouraged young single motherhood. Granted, this is subjective and based on my experience.
First and foremost is young single fatherhood -- guys who do not care about consequences or have no respect the girl because they have the attention span and emotional capacity of a gnat. Now, perhaps the idea that the girl will probably get a monthly check eases the burden of guilt...if there ever is any...for the father and, in that instance, makes it sort of OK to go on and father another kid with the next girl. That would be more of an encouragement for single fatherhood if that thought ever crossed their mind. That is sort of a biological and maturity thing.
The other factor, which I was surprised to learn, is peer pressure and a little bit of envy among young girls. In many communities or neighborhoods young girls have a fairly tight circle of friends who can exert pressure to conform on each other. When one girl has a baby and the circle of friends is accepting of that fact, it makes it OK for the next girl. If motherhood becomes the new group norm then the odd one will be the one without a baby. Some girls seem a little envious of the new mother and her relationship with the baby and want their own baby. The baby represents a long-term relationship and one that is not judgmental. This is sort of a social and psychological thing.
Options and opportunities rapidly diminish once that first baby arrives so the mother's prospects for school, work or a real relationship decrease and in some cases (not all) more babies arrive.
It's been a while but I have some experience as a welfare caseworker and I think the basic answer to the original question is no. Single motherhood happens all the time regardless of whether there is a government check. There are two factors that I learned early on that encouraged young single motherhood. Granted, this is subjective and based on my experience.
First and foremost is young single fatherhood -- guys who do not care about consequences or have no respect the girl because they have the attention span and emotional capacity of a gnat. Now, perhaps the idea that the girl will probably get a monthly check eases the burden of guilt...if there ever is any...for the father and, in that instance, makes it sort of OK to go on and father another kid with the next girl. That would be more of an encouragement for single fatherhood if that thought ever crossed their mind. That is sort of a biological and maturity thing.
The other factor, which I was surprised to learn, is peer pressure and a little bit of envy among young girls. In many communities or neighborhoods young girls have a fairly tight circle of friends who can exert pressure to conform on each other. When one girl has a baby and the circle of friends is accepting of that fact, it makes it OK for the next girl. If motherhood becomes the new group norm then the odd one will be the one without a baby. Some girls seem a little envious of the new mother and her relationship with the baby and want their own baby. The baby represents a long-term relationship and one that is not judgmental. This is sort of a social and psychological thing.
Options and opportunities rapidly diminish once that first baby arrives so the mother's prospects for school, work or a real relationship decrease and in some cases (not all) more babies arrive.
This sounds healthy. A human baby becomes an Iphone or a pet.
Is this the mentality that trillions of dollars in welfare has propagated? Is this what we have done to people through theft and redistribution? Created a class of people who bring new life into a hopeless world as a trifling status symbol?
It's been a while but I have some experience as a welfare caseworker and I think the basic answer to the original question is no. Single motherhood happens all the time regardless of whether there is a government check. There are two factors that I learned early on that encouraged young single motherhood. Granted, this is subjective and based on my experience.
First and foremost is young single fatherhood -- guys who do not care about consequences or have no respect the girl because they have the attention span and emotional capacity of a gnat. Now, perhaps the idea that the girl will probably get a monthly check eases the burden of guilt...if there ever is any...for the father and, in that instance, makes it sort of OK to go on and father another kid with the next girl. That would be more of an encouragement for single fatherhood if that thought ever crossed their mind. That is sort of a biological and maturity thing.
The other factor, which I was surprised to learn, is peer pressure and a little bit of envy among young girls. In many communities or neighborhoods young girls have a fairly tight circle of friends who can exert pressure to conform on each other. When one girl has a baby and the circle of friends is accepting of that fact, it makes it OK for the next girl. If motherhood becomes the new group norm then the odd one will be the one without a baby. Some girls seem a little envious of the new mother and her relationship with the baby and want their own baby. The baby represents a long-term relationship and one that is not judgmental. This is sort of a social and psychological thing.
Options and opportunities rapidly diminish once that first baby arrives so the mother's prospects for school, work or a real relationship decrease and in some cases (not all) more babies arrive.
I don't blame the guys at all. Yes they are cretins also, but I blame the girls. It is they who possess the physical capability of producing life. That is reality. It is they who can prevent the problem by behaving rationally. It is they who can make the obvious choice not to produce life where there is no possible means of supporting it.
But wait. There is support. There are programs. Programs where we take money from people and give it to those who make irrational and destructive choices. We make it possible where it otherwise would be impossible.
If the cost of spreading the legs and making babies carelessly and cavalierly were correct: utter destruction and shame and misery, then it would almost never happen.
But instead we have some twisted mentality that is misidentified as "compassion". We have "the welfare". Now we have the support. Now we make it possible to have babies as I-phones and pets so that some poor sap can keep up with her girlfriends and collect baby daddies as if they were bowling trophies.
This is not compassion. This is not caring. This is not help. In fact it is the socially engineered destruction of an entire segment of society. And it is an utter disgrace and an utter crime.
But I'm sure it doesn't "disgust" you seeing your tax dollars going to bombing poor people overseas though
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.
