patrick.net

Bap33 says

....all signle moms that use welfare should have mandatory NORPLANT. ….. I know, I know, I sound stupid.

It sounds like you believe in Eugenics. I suspect Voter Literacy Test would have been on your list if you'd gone on a bit longer. Being from SouthEast, I know what those were used for.

Again with the impossible social guarantees. Why is it eugenics to be more kind than to let nature terminate reproduction? Preventing conception by welfare moms who live is more pleasant than letting them and their children die based on their own merits, right? Quite a leap of accusations. Troll, troll, troll.

Bap33 says

If cutting off drinking times makes sense, then so does cutting of monitor entertainment.

You already failed because you think the internet is "monitor entertainment".

Bars closing at 2am, not selling liquor on sundays, and state-owned liquor stores are just hold overs of the temperance movement. It's bullshit that doesn't actually work, and it's a terrible basis for any argument about anything other than, perhaps, liquor laws.

Bap33 says

When I have to watch each dime that I spend at Savemart, and then I have to watch Maria the hyper-breeder (she’s about 19 with two kids in-tow and is also prego) pass through line ahead of me with two full baskets, buying alot of stuff with an EBT card… I admit it, I get a bit pissed.

Why don't you just go and be more successful?

Kevin,

I think maybe you misunderstood Bab33's point. It doesn't make sense, with the general population. Right after Bab33 wrote: "Ellie is correct, it only moves the location of whatever desired activity a person is after." He said that kind of thing made sense for people on welfare, not fully functioning adults (and by extension their young children). I think we agree the blue laws have little merit.

Go on to be more successful? This is not a free-market economy. It's half way to what you want, right? Please everybody, see the video Money as Debt. The job market is fixed by the fractional reserve banking system. Here is a link:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=5DBF509405ABE238

Please watch it. It is very entertaining and informative. It would be worth having a thread about it.

Kev, why don't she? She is not being effected by my selfish choices, but I am being effected by her selfish choices in many ways ... all bad.

Vince, I figure the facts speak for themself. Most teen/single moms enjoy full welfare and multiple births with the aide of so many welfare programs (WIC, Section 8, Medical, Free school lunches, bus pass, legal, eyes, dental, meds, and the very best one of all CASH CARD aka EBT card) .... so, why not use positive birth control since the millions of dollars spent for free rubbers and pills, plus all of the sex education being stuffed down the throats on 6th graders, just seems to be falling short?

Antifem, that you for at least reading what I wrote.

All,
I was just blowing off steam. Don't expect some detailed explaination of why having to watch another chubby teen mom of 3 spanish speaking kids buying $400 worth of steaks and cookies and sodas pisses me off ... I don't have one. It just bugs me.

Bap33 says

Kev, why don’t she?

I don't know. I don't particularly care, either -- but you're one of these "bootstraps" types, so when I see you make whiney comments about watching every dime that you spend, I have to ask, "Why don't you just go and be more successful?"

She is not being effected by my selfish choices, but I am being effected by her selfish choices in many ways … all bad.

Name one.

I mean, if you're so broke, you're probably in the "deadbeats who don't pay taxes" group anyway. All she's doing is getting a piece of my tax dollars anyway. Why do you care if she's living off of my labor?

I don't know the lady standing in line in front of you. She could be a real piece of shit, or she could be someone who got into a screwed up situation that was beyond her control. I've seen all types. The vast majority of people that I know who receive government assistance and who are fuck ups (and I know plenty, I'm from the midwest...) are going to be fuck ups with or without the assistance.

Really, though, the assistance is inconsequential. I'm way more concerned with all of my tax dollars being spent on bullshit medical treatments to keep people alive for an extra day or on cold war weapons programs.

Bap33 says

Vince, I figure the facts speak for themself. Most teen/single moms enjoy full welfare and multiple births with the aide of so many welfare programs (WIC, Section 8, Medical, Free school lunches, bus pass, legal, eyes, dental, meds, and the very best one of all CASH CARD aka EBT card) …. so, why not use positive birth control since the millions of dollars spent for free rubbers and pills, plus all of the sex education being stuffed down the throats on 6th graders, just seems to be falling short?

I'm not really that familiar with welfare programs myself, but I had read that the Federal programs limit lifetime benefits to 5 years. So I don't quite see how your "welfare Momma" can make it a career. Unless her life is quite short.

Kevin, pretty good post.

Vincent, that 5 year max you have heard about is make-believe. My sister and my wive's sister have both been on full blown aid and all of the sub-programs in California for 25 years (my sister) and 15 years (wifes sister). That cut-off number is just to keep the public from exploding over the truth.

The other most costly welfare abuse is allowing the invaders and their illegally dropped spawn to acess the public funded support system. If the invaders and their spawn were removed from all public aid then there would be less strain on the empty pockets of Uncle Sam.

Bap33 says

Kevin, pretty good post.
Vincent, that 5 year max you have heard about is make-believe. My sister and my wive’s sister have both been on full blown aid and all of the sub-programs in California for 25 years (my sister) and 15 years (wifes sister). That cut-off number is just to keep the public from exploding over the truth.

Isn't that welfare fraud?

No, its not welfare fraud. Its called liberal largess. Government will continually support the mother until each successive child is 18 years old. Lets see, the mom has her first child at 16 (for sake of argument) and receives benefits for the next 18 years (16 + 18 = 34). But when she was 20 she had another child (20 + 18 = 38). But wait, she had twins at 22 (22 + 18 = 40). But she met another guy at 25 and had another child (25 + 18 = 43). Three years passed before she produced another kid (28 + 18 = 46). At 30 she had another (30 + 18 = 48). Then for the next 6 years she had one every other year (36 + 18 = 54). And thats not welfare fraud at all, its just a lifetime of government dependency. She's become an indentured servant to the democratic party, out of necessity.

pretty close ... but, you need to factor in the fact that female childen of most mexican invaders, and welfare moms of all ethnic makeup, start making babies at about 16 years old ... so now they are getting double benifits and the time frame resets to "22 years to go" (up from 18) with the baby. It's pretty bad stuff, if the truth would only be put in the public's eye.
single moms raise the largest percentage of gangsters --- take Barry O for example (just kiddin my liberal peeps)

That's average monthly welfare benefits in 2006 dollars.

That was persons recieving food stamps in millions. Obviously much higher now, with our record breaking unemployment. But these grapghs don't support your assertions.

Persons Receiving Food Stamps: 1962–2006
(In millions)

That was families recieving income assistance. Fine print:

Note: “Basic Families” are single-parent families and “UP Families” are two-parent cases receiving benefits under AFDC Unemployed Parent programs that operated in certain states before FY 1991 and in all states after October 1, 1990. The AFDC Basic and UP programs were replaced by TANF as of July 1, 1997 under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Shaded areas indicate NBER designated periods of recession from peak to trough. The decrease in number of families receiving assistance during the 1981-82 recession stems from changes in eligibility requirements and other policy changes mandated by OBRA 1981. Beginning in 2000, “Total Families” includes TANF and SSP families. Last data point plotted is March 2007.

I'm opening my eyes. Yeah, that's really starting to get out of hand.

Source: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/indicators08/apa.shtml#ftanf2

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/indicators08/

sir, the trouble with your data is right in the very first few lines:
"The Welfare Indicators Act of 1994 specifies that the annual welfare indicators reports shall include analyses of families and individuals receiving assistance under three means-tested benefit programs:

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program authorized under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (which replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program in 1996);
The Food Stamp Program under the Food Stamp Act of 1977, as amended;
The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program under title XVI of the Social Security Act. "

Then if you go read those "acts" you will see the limited scope they allow themselves to be counted under.

Plus, the invaders are not counted in your data.

Your graphs are nice, and the info you try to not find is undeniable. Here's what I did ON HERE a while back to prove to those that have no idea how much welfare abuse is going on and how much invading mexicans are enjoying the welfare system. I found the data about teen births, multiple teen births, break down by race in Cal. Just the staggering numbers of that info showed where the WIC (not listed by your graph), Medi-cal (not on your graph), Section 8 (not on your graph), Free schooling (not on your graph), Free meds (not on your graph), Free dental and chiro (not on your graph), Free legal services (not on your graph), free child care (not on your graph), as well as the cash EBT card (might be part of your graph, but not sure). I am not real slick at searching PatNet, but I'll try. and if you would please look for all of the information then you will not seem to be purposely avoiding facts that do not match your chosen political view.

Ok ... My searching of my posts did not go well ... but one thing I did find was some cool older posts from the 2006 pre-bubble bust era. There were lots and LOTS of people posting that they did not think there was going to be any job loss, or significant price drop!!! wow.

why do you believe the charts don't include illegal immigrants? If the government says that they pay out benefits to a million people, what evidence do you have that it excludes illegals (who can't. Actually receive benefits, but get them on bealf of their citizen children)

Illegals can't actually recieve benefits, but get them on behalf of their citizen children, hahaha. That makes our politicians double-dumb...but none of them is as dumb as all of them.

Bap33 says

would please look for all of the information then you will not seem to be purposely avoiding facts that do not match your chosen political view.

Really ? The truth is, you said open your eyes. I just sought data showing the real trends in welfare outlays, not having any more of clue than you do what is really going on. What I found, were very clear official reports that were made to congress.

The trend seems to be significantly down in avg monthly welfare payments and down significantly in number of families on welfare. Food stamps seems to be oscillating back and forth over the same decades.

But it's all a trick. The way they get these to go down is by redirecting all the increasing welfare in to other categories. I see. You got me.

By the way, I may have a bias, but umm, you're the one who calls undocumented workers "invaders." I'm pretty sure that compared to you, at least on this issue, I'm objective.

This article is somewhat related, on Germany/Europe vs the US:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26603.htm?source=patrick.net

@ Kevin, are you playing devils advocate, or are you serious? You have always been pretty darn smart, so my guess is you are fully aware of how invaders have accessed the welfare system. If one were to look at Prop 187 and how the vote of California tax payers was destroyed ... a vote to keep invaders from accessing public support, that may show a possible issue.

@marcus, I agree, we have our biases. And yes, we have been invaded in California by mexicans who have no desire, at all, to be Americans. That would be "invader". Since there are mexican nationals that ARE taking the steps to be American's, there MUST be a destinction made between the two. One is an invaders taking short cuts, and one is a CITIZEN, willing to do what it takes to follow the laws of their new country. I choose to not dishonor the efforts of those who follow the law.

Bap33 says

And yes, we have been invaded in California by mexicans who have no desire, at all, to be Americans

Bap, I just don't see it that way. Sure, California's resources are stretched by the undocumented Mexcians.

As to whether the typical Mexican family that comes here has a desire to be American (given the proximity of their original country), that's irrelevant. Resistance is futile. Most will ultimately be assimilated, at least in a way. If they don't aspire for their kids to get a good education, their kids will want it for their kids. Do you have any idea how many Mexican Americans (legal) there are in California ? Do you have any idea how many of them join the armed services, and fight for this country?

Guess what ? Most of those Americans have parents or grandparents or further back who would fit your description of "invader."

I don't argue that it's fair for them to basically "cut" in line ahead of other foreigners who want to come here. But ultimately, in the long run, I do not see it as a negative to our country.

My father was 100% Irish, and my mom was I don't know, with ancestors going way way back in this country. But on my dad's side, his grandparents and great grandparents came over from Ireland. How much different am I from the many millions of people like me that will be here 150 years from now, and who are Mexican American, or half or quarter Mexican american ? Most paying taxes and being good citizens.

Bap33 says

and one is a CITIZEN, willing to do what it takes to follow the laws of their new country. I choose to not dishonor the efforts of those who follow the law.

I agree. And it's not that I fully approve of the illegals, but I think I kind of understand that they want a better life, and that ultimately they are responding to a "market" that we play a part in.

The Iron Lady is in the hospital .... let's hope this great lady gets well soon.

Margaret Thatcher said it best: “The problem with socialism is that you always run out of someone else’s money.”

Dear Duck:

Thatcher came in as a conservative reformist. She inherited a complete mess due entirely to the UK's post war socialism. Remember the nutty Brits turned Churchill out (another true conservative) in order to impliment their socialist/welfare state .... which failed. Under the Iron Lady, the UK began to turn the corner and actually prospered for the first time since before the war. The fact is, Thather, like Ronald Reagan, detested socialism. As the Iron Lady, she worked with Ronald Reagan to help dismantle (along with the Berlin Wall) your socialist dream world; the Soviet Union.

Bap33 says

All,
I was just blowing off steam. Don’t expect some detailed explaination of why having to watch another chubby teen mom of 3 spanish speaking kids buying $400 worth of steaks and cookies and sodas pisses me off … I don’t have one. It just bugs me.

Bap -
I see it both ways. It truly sucks that people are able to continually pop out children and remain on welfare programs. Having worked in a housing authority, it irked the shit outta me when a grandmother added her children, then her grandchildren to the lease, and the unit became multigenerational housing that the people couldn't be evicted out of (sorry about the poor grammar there). It pissed me off when we were forced to create departments designed to help people become self-sufficient when all they appeared to want was the financial assistance (matched funds, case management and referrals, etc). But we did help some people and I guess it was semi-successful.

The welfare moms that bilk the system suck. But do we as a society allow children to starve because the parents are total user idiots? We attempt to discourage the procreating mothers by paying them a minimal amount to keep them in poverty but offering them student loans and childcare... only to have them screwed royally by programs like Everest College that promise the moon and deliver very little. University of Phoenix and other private colleges are accused of having low repayment rates and the graduates seem to have little opportunity for employment. So, not only do we pay welfare and childcare, we eat the costs of their guaranteed student loans. That blows. These colleges should be required to pay back loans if the students don't get jobs in the field that they're being trained for.

But sometimes people do get off welfare. The children have a desire to better themselves, or they're inspired by a teacher (who isn't caught up in politics and nochildleftbehind bullshit)... We spend billions each year on people who don't appreciate it, but every now and then someone does. But I digress.

Do we let the children starve merely because their mothers can't stop popping out kids? It's assault to force them to take birth control - but why isn't there mandatory paternity testing for all these welfare babies? If the fathers had to pay for their welfare babies they'd probably use birth control. If they didn't pay, they should go to jail. If the mothers don't identify the fathers, they should go to jail and the kids put in foster care. They'd cough up names pretty quick.

There are many ideas as to what to do - but there are so many laws and rules that we've been stripped of our ability to implement the ideas. We do need change. I have a friend who works for a state agency and they're talking about eliminating programs - there's a very real possibility that she could lose her job. That sucks, but her program is one of those pilot programs that doesn't do shit except pay about 50 people very well to not help people.

A comment was made that you should make more money. Maybe you should shop elsewhere, where you don't have to stand in line behind these people. While you're at it, perhaps you should find another family because yours is busting with welfare recipients. Other ideas would be to take your paycheck and buy lotto tickets, or sell drugs, or rob a bank. Like our current system, this train of thought negates the fact that the system is broken and needs fixing.

I realize that I'm talking about fixing the program and not throwing out names like Thomas Jefferson, Hitler, Stalin, JFK, Thatcher, Newton, etc... I apologize for inserting thoughtful content, and not attacking anyone or claiming that I won.

Just keeping it real.

Ray - Thatcher did some good things for the UK, helping lift the country out of poverty in the 70s/80s, but the pendulum may have swang too far, just look at where the UK is now, compared with say Scandinavia or Germany, which have been doing much better.

The problem with American political discourse is that people are too anchored in ideological dogmas and not able to have a critical, nonbiased look at policies. Some "socialist" policies turn out to have a very positive economic impact.

Take childcare for example. In Quebec, it's subsidised by the state (province). Quality daycare in your neighborhood costs $7/day, with the province picking up most of the tab. But as a result, most moms work, generating income taxes and helping the labor pool develop. Younger single mothers can go to school (with colleges costing only $1,100/yr). This policy has been credited with almost single-handedly closing the wealth gap between Quebec and Ontario. Quebec used to be a poorer province. Today it has an unemployment rate smaller than either Ontario's or the US.

Freemarket and liberalism tend to be good impulses, but you've got to be able to judge the merit of economic policies without strong preconceived ideological biases. The problem in the US is that most people are too entrenched in a dogmatic mindset to be able to do this.

good post ellie.

yes, it was. Thanks for taking the time. I'd disagree though with the statement "Freemarket and liberalism tend to be good impulses" as I see morality as being independent of these systems, but the rest is fine by me.

Charles Hugh Smith has an interesting take on it:
http://www.oftwominds.com/blogoct10/normalized-pathologies10-10.html

elliemae says

welfare moms

Related, I for one am amazed we're still able to discuss 'welfare moms' as being a scourge on society after our gov has dropped Trillions on the banking system and corporations. I'd love to see a comparison of what the 'welfare moms' "cost us" to what the continuous gifts to corporate america do.

As far as continuing support for 'welfare moms' it actually doesn't bother me that much at all when I know that I live in a society that keeps me generally safe and secure and I have opportunities to develop and grow. Its a small price to pay for all the benefits. Besides, who knows, it may be me there one day and I'm eased by the knowledge that there's some sort of support system in place.

Welfare should be workfare. Got kids? Let some of the welfare moms watch all the kids while the rest do public work. I would have no problem with that.

It appears no one here is aware that welfare was reformed in 96. Lifetime benefits is 5 years, although each state is free to implement more or less than this.

Getting people upset about welfare is an amazing way to get them to ignore the real budget problems, like the ridiculous military spending and all the pork that congressmen send back to their districts.

Kevin, I totally agree with you, but would consider welfare fraud - and there is plenty of it, to be included with all the other ridiculous, mind boggling, rampant spending that is constantly going on. Taxes are crack-cocaine for politicians. I'd like to see all foreign aid money spent right here in America. Come on now, shouldn't we take care of Americans first? Somehow sending OUR money to other countries, while ignoring ourselves, doesn't quite make sense to me.

My problem is that I'm a logical person stuck in an illogical world (beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here).

Honest Abe says

BTW, it was recently reported that America is now less free than Britain…the country we fought to obtain our freedom from, UGH.

LOL, who reported that ? Was it Colbert again or that other dude with his million moderate march ? I dont think we obtained freedom from Britain, we obtained a whole frickin country from Britain. We the people decided how much freedom we wanted right ?

which one of you wants to be the one to tell this guy, Drew, he's not going to get help if you can possibly block it? I'm sure we can easily get his contact info. Just let me know, I'll pass the info to you so you can tell him personally:

http://www.wimp.com/homelessnessanyone/

and Abey, you're aware I assume that Israel is basically one of the biggest charity cases for the US, right? Shall we quit them, in your educated opinion?

Honest Abe says

Kevin, I totally agree with you, but would consider welfare fraud - and there is plenty of it, to be included with all the other ridiculous, mind boggling, rampant spending that is constantly going on. Taxes are crack-cocaine for politicians. I’d like to see all foreign aid money spent right here in America. Come on now, shouldn’t we take care of Americans first? Somehow sending OUR money to other countries, while ignoring ourselves, doesn’t quite make sense to me.
My problem is that I’m a logical person stuck in an illogical world (beam me up Scotty, there’s no intelligent life down here).

That's nice but the truth is welfare and foreign aid are such a small part of the budget that they represent little more than a rounding error in defense spending. Ranting about them while ignoring defense is illogical.

Honest Abe says

Kevin, I totally agree with you, but would consider welfare fraud - and there is plenty of it, to be included with all the other ridiculous, mind boggling, rampant spending that is constantly going on. Taxes are crack-cocaine for politicians. I’d like to see all foreign aid money spent right here in America. Come on now, shouldn’t we take care of Americans first? Somehow sending OUR money to other countries, while ignoring ourselves, doesn’t quite make sense to me.
My problem is that I’m a logical person stuck in an illogical world (beam me up Scotty, there’s no intelligent life down here).

Your problem is that you act as if welfare spending (and foreign aid, really?) is the big problem, and it isn't. I'd be all for killing all of those programs -- but they're NOT the priority. They're a tiny part of the budget. We need to focus on places where we actually spend money.

Here is where the federal government collects money (2010 est):
$1.061 trillion – Individual income taxes
$940 billion – Social Security and other payroll tax
$222 billion – Corporation income taxes
$77 billion – Excise taxes
$23 billion – Customs duties
$20 billion – Estate and gift taxes
$22 billion – Deposits of earnings
$16 billion – Other

Here is a list of where we are spending:

Mandatory:

$678 billion – Social Security
$453 billion – Medicare
Total: $1.13T

"Welfare"
$290 billion – Medicaid
$200 billion - other (WIC, etc.)
Total: $490B (I'll say $500B to be generous)

Military:
$700B - DoD / War on Terror
$250B - Iraq/ Afghanistan appropriations
$52B - VA
$42B - DHS
Total: $1.1 T (and this doesn't even include indirect spending by other agencies)

Everything else:
$1.1T (includes "bailouts", interest on debt, and all other federal agencies)

So, lets recap:

Social Security + Medicare + Military spending = $2.23T (63% of spending)
Total revenue = $2.3T

So, we DO NOT COLLECT ENOUGH REVENUE TO PAY FOR SS, MEDICARE, AND THE MILITARY.

If we exclude social security and medicare, since they're funded separately, we have a slightly better picture:

- $1.44T revenue
- $2.7T spending

Now, the military would account for 40% of the budget. The remaining 60% could be reduced, yeah -- but probably less than half of it. You're still screwed.

Yeah, go ahead and get rid of welfare. Slash the various federal agencies.

You still have a huge deficit.

You must, must, must address the big 3 as a top priority. There is absolutely no hope of a balanced budget without cutting at least one of the programs dramatically. You could reduce all other spending to zero, and still have a deficit (because of interest on the debt). The country would collapse in on itself and you'd STILL have a deficit!

Only one of those programs is considered discretionary
Only one of those programs lacks dedicated funding