I just KNEW you'd bite!
I didn't imply George was a god, you did.
By law there are agencies who are supposed take care of situations like this BEFORE the President ever gets involved! THEY "dropped" the ball.
Jayne
Pat P
I understand that they want three-weeks because of the cost of transporting (they fly you out the day you tell them you'll be free to go). Our local Red Cross had to go up the chain of command to get permission for two weeks. Interesting how different chapters are handling this.
I wanted to go as well, but they won't take me. :-) Too many meds. And my old bones couldn't take a bedroll. :-)
Dianne
Brenda Lewis wrote:
The horse is only dead because you don't like the direction he was headed in...
A portion, yes, but the article is arguing that all those who are left in New Orleans are parasites and criminals and I have to take exception to that.
You can stand by your statement, but I have to disagree both with the idea that people could have walked out and with the assertion that our society has come to expect someone else to fix their problems. I don't see it, not where I live. Some people, yes, but not society as a whole.
That seems to be what people think you said because it seemed to be what you said, partially because you agreed with an article that largely made that argument.
While I found the article to be interesting and informative, I certainly don't think it documents your point. What it says is that the welfare system was reformed because of the perception that it was creating parasites, not that it actually was creating them.
Elizabeth
Tia Mary , blest us all with:
There was always going to be a political storm come out of the aftermath of this 'atrocity. Blind Freddy himself could see that. Even Dubbja has recognised the signs :->
The point is, this is not about "whose the baddy" politically, its about America as a whole. Their ability to care for their own people. The footage of bodies lying on the pavement while vehicles drive by, the anecdotal of people who were in the Dome, the published anguish of persons being separated from their immediate family.. (some of whom are 'hands on' direct carers) ..is much more horrific in the picture being painted, internationally, of a nation that folks take for granted has their house in order. Well, America is busy getting other houses in order so you would rightly presume they have solutions for their own troubles?
I was a volunteer in the aftermath that Tracy left:
The day you are a poor black man or woman, who comes from poor black men and women, who are treated like shit all their lives, raped, beaten, and so divided among the white elitists, much like you, you have nothing to say, opine or divine.
Your word usage for human beings who happen to be another color other than your whiteness, holiness, thou, is disgusting at best, wrong viewed which is worse, and disgusting.
It's really easy for someone to call another human being a parasite when they have white towers they live in, maybe a few white towers to live in.
I say the wasps are the parasitic problem in this country. People like you. And the masses of ignorance which is incomparable to anything I've experienced in my life.
How dare you. I hope you never have to ask for welfare. I'm certain you'd never give a bum a five dollar bill and not control what he then buys with it. I say, give the bum the five and if he buys alcohol or drugs, he's a really sick man or woman and has problems anything I'd ever experience in my life. A little compassion goes a long way...oh great white dead horse.
nunya , blest us all with:
Dont let it get to ya bloke :-) Like them leigesus folk ses, "blest is them lil chiluns what come unta me, forgave dem lawd for they knows not what dem does"
...or whatever
I hears ya but I am sorry to say., "the weak and poor have little voice". And Martin is dead, and Nelson somehow missed the tek-no-hol-o-gee age (beats me how - had plenty of time on his hands ).
Still, the revolution goes on :-)
jLb
I don`t think , this is the time to be critical , this is the time for empathy , for offering help , as to how tro handle many berieved and traumatised people. [Esp with the many who feel betrayed by their country`s `behaviour`] , Those of us who can and have friends there , just can Help those , other can help in other ways. Let`s al wish ,, The wounded ones quick healing ,,, the berieved ones condoloneces ,,, hunger, lonliness , being left to cope on your own are hard times. The memories will go with those who were there for their whole life. mirjam
Dr. Brat wrote:
Again -- quoted from the original paper....... "A third factor contributing to the dislike of the welfare system is also related to incentives, in particular disincentives to work. These effects are reflected in the high marginal (and average) tax rates placed on the earnings of households that receive benefits. Figure 5 illustrates the budget constraint faced by a single parent with two children in a typical state, under a variety of hours of work and hourly wage rate assumptions. Total annual family income is plotted on the y-axis; family earnings on the x-axis.13 {{{footnote 13 This figure is constructed from estimates from a micro-data simulation model reported in Giannarelli and Steuerle (1996). In Figure 5, annual earnings from 0 to 2080 hours per year are determined by assuming the welfare recipient earns the pre-reform minimum wage of $4.25 per hour. (The minimum wage is $5.15 per hour now.) Working fulltime at this wage yields $8,840 of annual earnings. Earnings beyond this level are assumed to come from increases in the wage rate. For example, the earnings level of $13,260 in Figure 5 assumes that the recipient works full-time at $6.35 per hour, which some estimates suggest is close to the expected wage rate of the typical welfare recipient. Also see Dickert, Houser and Scholz (1995) for a similar analysis.}}}} ........Assume that the woman faces the choice of either welfare recipiency or full-time work at a $6.35 wage rate. As a welfare recipient, her position is shown as point A on the diagram, reflecting a total income (including AFDC, Food Stamps, housing subsidies and Medicaid) of $15,137. However, if she were to work full-time at $6.35 an hour, she would earn $13,260. This level of earnings exceeds the eligibility limit for AFDC benefits. Annual Food Stamp benefits at this income level are very small, $572, but the woman receives $2,428 in EITC benefits, and housing subsidy benefits valued at $2,430 (plus Medicaid). Taking account of taxes and other offsets to income, the woman?s position is shown as point B on the diagram, indicating annual income of $18,828. Although her market wage rate is $6.35 for each of the 2080 hours per year that she works, her net wage rate (her total income from working full-time less her income should she not work at all, divided by
2080 hours) is only $1.78.14 Such a meager hourly return to work is a strong deterrent to entering the labor force and seeking work. Taken together, the high benefit reduction rates and very low net average wage rates tend to lead some recipients to cease job search completely, and others to reduce hours worked.15 {{{footnote 15 In addition to high marginal and average tax rates on earnings, the AFDC and Food Stamps programs contained enforced ?assets tests,? eliminating eligibility for assistance if assets (including a car) exceed some very low level. For example, in the 1995 AFDC program, those families eligible for benefits cannot hold assets valued at more than $2,500: $1,000 in equity value plus a car worth up to $1500. In the Food Stamp program, the asset limit is $2,000 for households without an elderly member and $3,000 for those with an elderly member.}}}}" These words..."... Taken together, the high benefit reduction rates and very low net average wage rates tend to lead some recipients to cease job search completely, and others to reduce hours worked. ..." are the ones that back up my belief that extended reliance on the welfare system CAN turn people into parasites! If it's more financially beneficial for a welfare recipient NOT to work, why would that person continue to work? If I wanted to spend my time doing academic research in support of my opinion of the Welfare System, I am sure I could find articles that would be applicable. Since I live in the world of everyday life, I don't choose to spend my time doing this. I quit University after taking a number of credits towards my Master's Degree because I wasn't enjoying my climb up the Ivory Tower and the attitude towards "real life" nurtured there. Pedagoguery is VERY "off-putting" IMNSHO! I know I said I would do my best to refrain from any further input to this particular thread. I just felt that it was necessary that others who were interested got to see the part of the paper -- the part about the very real disincentives to work -- that WAS applicable to the original premise of the New Orleans article. Since you didn't feel it pertinent to include this information, I thought I would do so. I certainly don't expect to find ANY study that would say Welfare is worthless and turns out societal parasites and sheep in droves because that's just not true. What I feel IS true is that those who are NOT self motivated or have much initiative WILL become sheep and parasites on our society if they remain on welfare for an extended period of time. Also, to answer Dianne's question -- YES, I read the entire article AND the footnotes and even the tables at the end. CiaoMeow >^;;^<
That's an interesting turn of phrase: "Reliance on the welfare system." Many have no options for many reasons, some of which have already been mentioned, such as no job nearby, no transportation, not able to afford childcare for very young children, a disability.
It's so very easy to "dismiss" the poor. Even the working poor.
Different states handled this different ways during different times. In the 1960's, the State of Michigan had a program whereby, when you received a raise from your job, you didn't lose your eligibility. It was formulated so that you actually got ahead, albeit modestly.
Even so, inflation during that time was fast eating up any increases in pay, and I was fast losing ground. Marriage took me out of poverty.
It was/is a more complicated picture than that.
That's not what you said at first, nor is it the gist of the referenced article.
Well, you're doing better than me. I'm still wading through it. :-)
Dianne
I read that, and it made me wonder: if a woman chooses to stay home and raise her children while her husband works, is she a parasite? Don't we usually consider that she is doing useful work in making a home for her spouse and children and raising future contributing citizens? So what is so wrong about paying a single mother to stay home and raise future contributing citizens? Why is one a parasite while the other is a paragon?
Nice, Mary. Really nice. In spite of what you are implying here, I too live in "everyday life" as do all the academics I know. We all have to pay taxes, buy groceries, clean up after our kids and spouses and selves, and balance the check book at the end of the month. The idea that academics don't live in the real world is a canard perpetrated by those who haven't bothered to understand what academics really do.
I'm sorry that I've irritated you enough that you feel the need to be personally insulting simply because I don't agree with you.
That's fine, but what does that have to do with backing up your emphatically stated opinion with a little fact once in a while? You don't have to do academic research to know that many of the claims that have been made in this thread are simply false.
I thought about including it, but I would not have done so without the comment that I have now made above and I wasn't sure how relevant that was. I did think that it was a very small part of the paper and I still don't think it documents your claim that the welfare system encouraged social parasites. That would imply that people on welfare did nothing good at all and I think that raising children is of high social value (especially since I have no desire to do it).
Yes, but again, that's not what the original article that Pat posted claimed. That article, which you claim to agree with, make the former assertion that you are now claiming you don't agree with.
Elizabeth
It would help to look at research on the current welfare system rather than the old one (e.g., TANF rather than AFDC).
A) They *CANNOT* be on welfare for an extended period of time because there is a lifetime limit on benefits. B) People without initiative are parasites *REGARDLESS* of whether they are receiving welfare. Methinks you have your causality running in the wrong direction.
Best wishes, Ericka
However, there are also those who WILL become parasites even if *not* on welfare. I've had a series of roommates who saw no point in paying their half of the rent, because they knew I'd see to it that it was paid on time. They had a responsible roommate who would take care of them, therefore, they could spend their own earnings on booze. No job? What, me worry? I'll just eat Karen's food while she's at work. I was not going to jeopardize the roof over *my* head, which meant my roommate(s) would have food and shelter, too, because I'd see to it that the rent was paid and groceries bought.
So, it doesn't matter if it's government welfare or a church program for widows and orphans, some people, if you offer them a hand up, will abuse it and see no point in looking for a job to become self-sufficient, because they're sure that they can continue to guilt you into continuing to support them. I've always gotten that stunned look of shock from my leeches when I've ordered them out; if I'm going to pay the whole rent myself, I may as well enjoy the privacy (and lower food bills) of living alone and paying all the bills without help, but they try to throw my religion in my face, that it's not Christian of me to let the needy fend for themselves.
I thought long and hard about a local church's call to find temporary homes for hurricane refugees, but I've been defrauded by so many people who stuck me with unpaid rent/phone/electric bills that I just cannot take a chance again. I'm not financially stable enough myself to take the risk of someone running up a $400 phone bill and not paying it (as happened at least twice in the past). If I'd had better luck with roommates in the past, maybe I'd be more willing to trust a total stranger.
My understanding with the *current* welfare program (TANF--AFDC hasn't existed for nearly ten years), there is less of that discrepancy. However, there remains a serious discrepancy in that few jobs landed by previous welfare recipients provide medical insurance (they generally get Medicaid while on welfare). That means that as soon as they're working, they are at serious risk of losing everything if there are any health care issues. Many states have programs to insure the children of working poor, which certainly helps, but given the relatively high proportion of welfare recipients who have health issues, the lack of healthcare is a strong disincentive. You can have all the will to work in the world, but you have to think hard about making a choice that means you can't afford to keep yourself healthy enough to continue working and looking after your kids.
Best wishes, Ericka
Amen to that. A friend of mine had a special needs child. I forget how many surgeries in the first year of life, and more to come. Since the father worked only seasonally and had no insurance, they qualified for government medical assistance. They had to look at the reality that if she took a job flipping burgers, she'd have to pay for the next $25,000 surgery out of her $8,000/yr paycheck. Not to mention, regular day care would not take this kid -- to earn $5 an hour, she would have had to pay a nurse's aide $7-8 an hour to provide the specialized care this child required (her digestive tract didn't work properly and I will spare you the gross details of what the caregiver had to do as a result).
Clearly, the family was financially better off with the mother staying home to provide the specialized care than they would have been with her taking an unskilled job and hiring out the specialized care. Or would you recommend that she go to work and they file bankruptcy?
BRAVA, BRAVA!!!!
A former co-worker who was a single parent (XH ran off when he realized babies are not Barbie Dolls) observed that for 18 years, Social Services "did not want her to sh**, shower or sleep". If the kid got into trouble when she was attending to her own physical needs, she got a visit from the social worker investigating her fitness as a parent. How many of you could tolerate these "pop quiz" visits from a social worker? They'd critique her housekeeping and look in her fridge.
That's right, you take your kid to the ER for a normal childhood accident, and you get investigated by someone who's sure the kid got hurt because you were smoking crack instead of watching carefully. Do you hire a babysitter every time you take a shower? Do you and DH sleep in shifts so there's always someone awake to make sure the kid doesn't climb out of the crib? Those are the things she got investigated for.
This, of course, is also another issue to which I can say that, it depends on whether you find food in a crisis, or you are looting. This is the bare bones of the answer. There can be no doubt, nor denial that racism comes into play in all aspects of life regardless the monetary situation, or the vapid argument that it doesn't exist.
The ignorance which tells people they are somehow motivated or are nudged to aspire in life to be something greater than a parasitic welfare tramp based only on the point they do not receive public assistance is quite ignorant in and of itself.
The statement which says that welfare keeps people down, while having some basis in fact, overall, it is pure and utter crap. The truth, like it or not is that poverty breeds poverty. Put some icing on the cake by adding in brown skin, there you have the recipe for destitution. It's so much worse than anyone will ever know. Particularly people who shuttle back and forth from one state to the next as easily as they can flush a toilet with clean hands.
I doubt if our little town has that many apparently healthy but severely disabled young people in their teens and twenties with two or three kids! LOL! One or two, maybe, at the most.
I do know a bit about it, having one disabled daughter with bi-polar - and another who worked in a local pharmacy for 16 years! The Bi-Polar one looks perfectly fit and healthy, and when she`s in a good period is perfectly capable - even completed a college course during a good period. During her frequent spells of rapid cycling it`s a totally different matter, but even so she is struggling to find work. For one thing she seems to keep pretty well when she`s working, but where she lives, out in the wilds, there`s precious little opportunity for it - which is why she`s also trying her damnedest to get moved into town. Fortunately the place isn`t jumping with people in her position, but it IS jumping with the drug takers and welfare scroungers, all breeding like rabbits.
By the way, how many attractive men are there in your town who are disconnected from reality - or is it always the same one? Or are they all on drugs? Most of those who are disconnected from reality in OUR town are on drugs - you see them queueing up at the pharmacy for their daily methodone in a certain part of town. They have to take it in front of the pharmacist, or they`ll be selling it.
Pat P
InspirePoint website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.