Chris Christie Rejects Effort To Repeal Racist, Sexist Rule That Punishes Poor Children

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

Source: ThinkProgress

Since 1992, the height of hysteria over the racist “welfare queen” myth, New Jersey has refused to give poor parents an increase in welfare benefits for any new children they have. The policy effectively penalizes them for growing their families — even though family who has more children before enrolling gets more benefits to cover the additional children.

Last month, state lawmakers sent Gov. Chris Christie (R) a bill that would repeal the welfare family cap, one of many policies around the country that were explicitly implemented in the 1990s as an attempt to curb the families of low-income women, particularly women of color. But Christie refused to sign it, saying in his veto message that getting rid of the cap would be unfair to families who don’t need cash assistance.

Before welfare was reformed in the 90s, states gave families an increase in benefits when they had new children so as to help parents cover the extra expenses. But a racist myth that promiscuous single black mothers were abusing welfare and having more children to get more benefits took hold. Lawmakers responded by trying to punish these “welfare queens” for reproducing.

After welfare reform, 22 states instituted welfare family caps. As of 2012, 58,000 families had their benefits reduced by a state family cap policy.


Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2016/07/05/3795389/christie-welfare-family-cap/

---

Chris here folks, back from Italy :




Do you know I actually ate an orangutan in Italy-it was cooked of course !
They gave it what sounded like a very fancy name for a meal which I later found out through translation meant cannibal what the hector.

[rocktivity]

1. The rule punishes only those whose sexual partners (also) don't use or can't afford birth control

I mean, let's be fair -- should people on public assistance be having sex at all, never mind more babies?

Just take away any additional children they have -- THAT'S how to teach them a lesson!


rocktivity

[cstanleytech]

2. I never understood why states didnt provide free birth control though if

they really want to make things better its probably the cheapest method because it does alot from reducing the number of children born to parents who cannot afford children to reducing the infection rate from sexually transmitted diseases which can cost a hell of alot to treat if someone catches one.

[BumRushDaShow]

3. The flip side -

Remember Norplant? More on that.

[cstanleytech]

4. I was thinking more along the lines of government doing more to provide things like free condoms

since its the least invasive method and besides the odds are its a guy who is going to be the main one who can pass a sexually transmitted disease easier to another person not to mention getting a women pregnant though of course to be fair the offer for birth control in its other forms should be offered to women as well.

[BumRushDaShow]

6. I do understand and agree!!

For awhile, I recall a push for what was dubbed a "female condom".

The issue is that until societal pressure increases to the point where males are expected to take more responsibility, it will still fall on the female, who will continue to be "blamed" for the pregnancy, and penalized.

[rocktivity]

5. There are two things that can be done in the meantime

1. Stop having sex with people who can't or won't supply you or themselves with birth control.

2. Stop having sex.


rocktivity

[Odin2005]

7. Sadly there seems to be a lot of support for BS like this.

Among my fellow Millennials the idea that "poor people shouldn't breed" is pervasive.

[Wash. state Desk Jet]

8. In business I have seen a lot things.

One of the most sad and pathetic situations I observed is a republican lawyer tax attorney who couldn't care less about feeding the homeless through charity and helping feed children of homeless parents through that charity ,school clothing ,on so on,-that lawyer resenting having to go to a charity gig sponsored by a group of his rich clients ,all of whom that tax attorney keeps out of jail,-And don't you know he had to participate and very cheaply part with some of his money to satisfy his clients .

He actually had to go to an evening dinner gig set up to raise money for a charity, and give up a little money to show or at least make it appear as though he gives a shit.I had to realize that man must have thought that those people that far into the outs do not serve a purpose in the republican base and therefore the problem belongs to the democrats.

He also resents old money families because he wasn't born into wealth and his ivy league education does not serve to grant him that trust he must have . And yes he is a crook and doesn't that figure. Cheapness and greed. They can argue their views at long length but it all comes down to cheapness and greed.And that's me me me. They will say hard works pays off, that's how you get something, but than they try to find ways to tap into the fruits of your labor as though they are entitled. So whats a thug right ?

They don't mind a little change just so long as it is small change ,very small.And paying for it, they believe you should. You as in most people. 350 bucks the hour,cheapness and greed.That self justification belief system they operate by does seem to spread like a virus- of a kind that moves through the air.And to the unbeknoweth,it can seem to make sense. Really it's just the philosophy of power.

This particular scum bag of mention also happens to be a Vietnam war draft dodger, which is part of why I looked deeper into him.
Not a conscientious objector,but something of a very particular category.