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 is the sort of thing that far too many conservatives love to eat up with relish, that one amazing YouTube video, that crazy headline, that one story on Fox News...
Though I can understand the passion to beat your dogma propaganda drum in keeping with whatever your particular philosophy, you would think there would at least be some effort to get the facts right, at least put in context. Is that so much to ask before we wail away about one person of 350 million Americans "caught on tape?"
What is the average number of children in families receiving assistance?
To any of you who have commented in this thread without even caring to know the facts of these matters, you're the one that needs to take a good look in the mirror if you ask me!
The list of additional questions you might bother to research for the rest of these stories might be a good idea too, and then guess what..., we're actually commenting on something we know about rather than feeding off the emotion of one stupid YouTube video. I hate to think how many Americans don't agree with bothering for the truth of these matters in the least!
The average monthly number of TANF families was 1,847,155 in FY 2010. The estimated average monthly number of TANF recipients was 1,084,828 adults and 3,280,153 children. The average monthly number of TANF families increased in 47 States and reflects an overall seven percent increase from 1,726,560 families in FY 2009. California had the largest number of TANF families in FY 2010 with a monthly average of 576,150, accounting for 31 percent of the U.S. total. New York ranked second with an average monthly caseload of 121,240. Ohio ranked third with a monthly average of 103, 000. California, New York and Ohio had a combined monthly average of 800,400, accounting for 43.3 percent of U.S. totals. The average number of persons in TANF families was 2.4, including an average of 1.8 recipient children. One in two recipient families had only one child. Less than eight percent of families had more than three children. The average number of children in closed-case families was 1.8. Nearly one in two closed-case families had one child, and only seven percent had more than three children.
Quote:
The average monthly cash payment to a family with one child was $378 per month,[6] but most TANF families receive other, non-cash, assistance. In the 2011 fiscal year, 97 percent of TANF families received medical assistance, and 83 percent received SNAP (food stamps), 12 percent had subsidized housing, and eight percent had subsidized childcare.[7] - See more at: Child Recipients of Welfare(AFDC/TANF) | Child Trends
Please note I spend less than $200 on food each month. This literally means those children eat better than I do.
The saddest part of it all is that by the age of 17, the majority of those kids will likely be one of the following:
A.) dead
B.) in some phase of the juvenile justice system (not because of racist whites, but because of their own poor decisions)
C.) pregnant (or a baby daddy) and beginning their own cycle of perpetual laziness and poverty that the taxpayers will be forced to take care of
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that maybe two of them will do something positive with their lives (go to college, get married and have a family, not be a burden to society, ect...).
Since this is an old video, are there any updates on them?
Status:
"Smartened up and walked away!"
(set 27 days ago)
11,782 posts, read 5,795,007 times
Reputation: 14207
I think most posters on these boards know that having 15 children is extreme and not every recipient has 15 children. That being said - if you are so down on your luck that you have to apply for assistance and you shouldn't continue to be popping out babies.
There is someone right now I know who is a friend of my son's that has 2 children and wants a third. She and her boyfriend - the father of the children will not get married. She does work and is a good worker but the kids are covered under Child Health Plus and she receives WIC and was complaining they cut her WIC allotment as they no longer will pay for the formula - WIC feels the child should be on milk. She is a wonderful mom but I had to bite my tongue that they had enough money for $120 worth of tickets to an event.
I've been on food stamps in the past - 2 months - when my husband was laid off. We qualified for HEAP one year and WIC for 4 months when he was laid off the day after I gave birth to our second child. But we did not abuse the system. As soon as he got called back to work the 1st time - I called to return the food stamps - I was told to keep them - it was too much paperwork on their end if I returned them. WIC - even 30 yrs ago - gave much more than 2 children - 1 month and 2 1/2 yrs needed and they continue to do so - so I have ever right to comment on the wasteful system and the people who take advantage of it because I have first hand knowledge of the abuse and insane metrics.
This is the sort of thing that far too many conservatives love to eat up with relish, that one amazing YouTube video, that crazy headline, that one story on Fox News...
Though I can understand the passion to beat your dogma propaganda drum in keeping with whatever your particular philosophy, you would think there would at least be some effort to get the facts right, at least put in context. Is that so much to ask before we wail away about one person of 350 million Americans "caught on tape?"
What is the average number of children in families receiving assistance?
To any of you who have commented in this thread without even caring to know the facts of these matters, you're the one that needs to take a good look in the mirror if you ask me!
The list of additional questions you might bother to research for the rest of these stories might be a good idea too, and then guess what..., we're actually commenting on something we know about rather than feeding off the emotion of one stupid YouTube video. I hate to think how many Americans don't agree with bothering for the truth of these matters in the least!
This is a few years old. I've seen it several times. UNBELIEVABLE.
Even worse is when the same sensational this or that gets regurgitated in the name of beating that same propaganda, over and over...
Just classic!
Forget the statistics and all the rest, watch this YouTube video, in fact this would make for another great right-winging thread now, and probably next year too!
Please note I spend less than $200 on food each month. This literally means those children eat better than I do.
Funny, because I was going to post some statistics to add to my comment, but then thought why bother? Also, lots you can find is a little dated and typically at times right in the midst of our Great Recession that clearly aggravated all these assistance numbers. How about we not take that out on the poor kids, or what? Let them go hungry, malnutritioned, to become an ever worse burden later? Please, no thank you...
At least we get one basic closer to right anyway...
"The average number of persons in TANF families was 2.4, including an average of 1.8 recipient children. One in two recipient families had only one child. Less than eight percent of families had more than three children.
This is an old video and has been posted on this site before with multiple threads.
Exactly, the date on the clip is Jan. 2013. How is this woman & her family doing now? Do we have an update on her & them? That's what would be interesting.
My opinion - @ 15 kids, she needs to figure out how she's going to feed, clothe & raise them all. The state has some interest in providing school, Kinder, prenatal & WIC assistance in making sure mom & fetus/baby have healthy food. If they qualify on income, there's some health care & dental.
But all that isn't meant to guarantee her a life of ease - nor to absolve her of any financial responsibility for her children. If she wants an easier life, she should get herself to Planned Parenthood or some other birth control agency & learn how to avoid unwanted pregnancy.
Her claim - that someone should be paying for her children - is quite right. Unfortunately for her, she & the children's father(s) are the parties directly responsible for that. The state may fill in, up to a point. But clearly, the state doesn't have the resources to pay for everyone's children, full time, all the time.
If the parents in this case don't want to shoulder the financial burdens, then they should jointly & severally stop producing more children. The state may step in & help - that varies from state to state - but no one expects the state to take the entire burden unto itself, permanently, generation after generation. State budgets don't work that way, & taxpayers would revolt.
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.
Self-help first, then the community
