NYT: A Welfare Law Milestone Finds Many Left Behind

[wellst0nev0ter]

PHILADELPHIA, Aug. 18 — Over the last five years, Mysheda Autry has received welfare checks and food stamps, gone through a welfare-to-work program and briefly held several jobs. She has also given birth to her second and third children.

Ms. Autry, 25, with a 10th-grade education, was finally overwhelmed by the demands of work and family, and in February she showed up at the People’s Emergency Center, a social service agency, with her three children, a fourth on the way, no job and no place to live.

She has exceeded the usual five-year limit for receiving welfare, and although the state has given her a reprieve, her benefits will be cut off, she has been warned, if she does not resume full-time job-skill classes and a job search within eight and a half months after her new baby is born.

As political leaders give two cheers on Tuesday for the 10th anniversary of the welfare reform law that helped draw many single mothers from dependency into the work force, though often leaving them still in poverty, social workers and researchers are raising concerns about families that have not made the transition and often lead extraordinarily precarious lives.

These include mothers who, so beleaguered by personal problems and parenting that they have not been able to keep jobs, continue to need counseling and cash. They also include another large group of poor mothers — one million by some estimates — who are neither working nor receiving benefits.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/22/us/22welfare.html?ex=1313899200&en=7b4a58d2f476de2b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

[Kickoutthejams23]

1. This makes me mad.

And not in a good progressive way either.

Here is a quote from the article.

After Ms. Autry became pregnant in the 10th grade and dropped out of school, she continued living in a crowded, tumultuous house filling with babies. She had to move out last February, however, when her mother moved to a smaller home that she now shares with two sons, the other daughter and that daughter’s two children.

The father of Ms. Autry’s 6-year-old boy is out of the picture, as is the father of the girl whose birth is imminent. The father of her 3-year-old girl and her 21-month-old boy is in prison.

After the birth of her first child, she worked at McDonald’s for several months. But she could not stand it, she said, when the boy started referring to her mother as Mom.





So she lives with her mother.

Will not hold a job because of emotional reasons.

Has had 4 children by three different fathers. (The only one's whereabouts she knows is the one in prison)

Keep in mind she had these kids while she was in the state program to begin with. :grr:



This is a poster child (person) for eliminating Welfare. There is zero personal responsibility shown here. It reads like a very effective Repug attack ad.

She has made multiple bad decisions over and over again without consequence and we say the system is broken.

I know we can't cut her and her children off from Welfare. I know we can't put her kids in better homes and forcibly tie her tubes so she doesn't continue to breed. I know these feelings make me a bad progressive (and a bad person.) But dammit after reading her story I don't feel pity or a call to action I feel mad.
:banghead:

[wellst0nev0ter]

2. Not Sure How Eliminating Welfare Is Gonna Work

Just gonna have this large of a family in even more destitution. She did try holding some more jobs, but you are right, there are some people that just can't be helped, for some reason or another.

If there's another solution for these people besides welfare, I'd like to hear it.

[Dogmudgeon]

3. That's exactly what you're supposed to feel

They take your mind off things like the war, the environment, energy, massive corruption in government, the increasing power of corporations. It's convenient to turn the attention away from the powerful bastards and get people mad at the clueless.

In times when We, The People are getting screwed, these RW agitprop stories are fed to us at a faster rate. In the 1970s, I remember a number of exposés about "welfare queens" buying liquor and fillet mignon with food stamps. And yesterday, there was extensive reporting on JonBenet's possible killer eating fried prawns during his trip back to the USA.

Our "Personal Responsibility" (a.k.a. "bend over and Assume the Position") is to keep focused on the Real Issues and not let our would-be masters control our reactions with cheap yellow journalism like this.

Ms. Autry probably has gotten her punishment for not being a Good Citizen, in the form of chronic anxiety, fear, uncertainty about the future, and zero self-worth. What that we could find a way to transfer that experience to George W. Bush.

--p!

[silverojo]

8. This makes me madder

The fairest way to eliminate this kind of welfare abuse without harming people who really need it would be:

Welfare will help you and your existing children (and the "one on the way", if you're pregnant). If you have any further children, those will NOT be supported by the welfare program. You want 'em--you pay for 'em.

Meanwhile, single people and disabled people can't get on welfare, because of Clinton's welfare DEform. You have to have "dependent children". I should know...as a single, disabled person with no children, I'm not eligible for anything except my state's Medicaid program.

In other words, what Clinton did was to reward people for irresponsibly having children, while penalizing people for having the good sense not to have babies when you're incapable of supporting them. :mad:

[regnaD kciN]

11. Your facts are somewhat off...

In other words, what Clinton did was to reward people for irresponsibly having children, while penalizing people for having the good sense not to have babies when you're incapable of supporting them.

That wasn't Clinton's doing.

The (rightly-called) Welfare DEform of 1996 was to a pre-existing program called Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). That program had already been made the centerpiece of "welfare" years before. In other words, the notion that only families with children deserved welfare came about a lot earlier than Clinton.

In general, the Republican approach to welfare has been punitive at best. At one point in the 1960s, the Republicans pushed through the "no man around the house" law, that held that, to receive welfare, you had to be a single parent. In many cases, this led to married (or common-law "married") couples having to separate so that the wife and kids could qualify for a welfare check. Of course, a few years after that, one started hearing about how the "cycle of poverty" was exacerbated by having children without a father playing an active role in their lives. Needless to say, that phenomenon was written off as a moral failing of those in the "underclass" rather than a situation that had been forced upon desperately-poor people by a government more worried about an "able-bodied" man getting one cent of our tax dollars.

:eyes:

[LostinVA]

20. She has a 10th grade education and no proper upbringing

Not everyone is as smart and emotional and mentally stable as you. What this shows is current programs do NOT work. We need mentoring, and real educating of these poor women... not "job skills classes" and posts such as I see on these thread.

Compassion and understanding is needed here, not judgment. The system isn't working because the system has sucked for decades. You don't throw a gallon of water at someone who is drowning. You teach them to swim, so they won't drown in the first place.

Lots of RW viewpoints on here today. Their propaganda is working.

But, to be honest, this type of post is not a surprise from you.

[Pithlet]

41. Eliminating welfare for children

will not make it any easier to get assistance for others. In fact, supporting policies that will gut welfare for children will only ensure that everyone else who needs a safety net won't have it, either. The powers that be who want to eradicate social programs aren't interested in helping anyone. They only want the money for more tax breaks for corporations and the rich. If they aren't going to blink an eye at letting children go without, which is basically what you're proposing, they certainly aren't going to care about the disabled, the elderly, or those who've lost their jobs. We have to care about all children, even those unlucky enough to be born to parents that some deem irresponsible. Those children don't require or deserve any less.

[rodeodance]

18. Women such as this need long term mentoring, which the fed program

does not allow for. Tragic, as she will end up in the streets shortly I suppose.

[LostinVA]

19. "Continue to breed" -- oh boy

Animals breed, people have children.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

43. People are animals n/t

[Lindacooks]

26. This is NOT a poster child for eliminating welfare.

This is a sad example of how some people are just so messed up they can't take care of themselves. You are being overly judgmental and dismissive of her problems.

What exactly do you propose to do about people with problems like this? All I see in your post is condemnation and judgment; that doesn't solve anything.

[Kickoutthejams23]

35. Like I said in my post

I know we can't eliminate welfare. I actually like the Norplant idea though. However there are no easy fixes. The girl's mother in the story (a welfare reciepant with six children of her own) clearly has giving her daughter the same values she grew up with. (There are no fathers in this article at all. The men in these woman's lives should be ashamed.If men is the right word to describe them.) So it is a case of breaking the cycle before this woman ruins her own children and the cycle begins anew.

My reaction was a late night gut reaction. It kind of reminds me of how I felt watching Rory Kennedy's poverty advocacy film American Hollow. I'm sure there were good points made about the cycle of poverty in the film but I was to busy yelling at the screen for the "menfolk" to get off their fat lazy asses and get a job (or at the very least pick up the yard) the bigger social economic picture was left by the wayside.

This Times article prompted the same gut reaction. It's a good piece but the unsaid advocacy for Welfare recipients is thrown to the side. I don't see a poor little thing who has stumbled upon bad circumstances. I see an adult woman who has squandered every opportunity given her and then some. I've got a deal for her. We will put her kids in a foster/or adoptive position till she can show that she can take care of them herself. Both emotionally and financially. I've known too many woman who struggled under the same circumstances and made it work. She is an embarrassment to mothers everywhere. (Oh bloody hell my anger is showing through again.)

Keep sending her checks but don't allow her to raise her kids. (Or we will be paying for their welfare benefits/incarceration costs twenty years from now)

[Pithlet]

37. How do we decide who gets to keep her kids?

Do we set up a board to review all mothers who need public assistance to decide which of them get to keep her kids, and which ones don't? And what guidelines are used? Should these review members be pre-screened for adequate rage potential to make sure they aren't closet bleeding hearts, and if they're willing to be the ones to physically remove the screaming children from their mothers?

Seriously, do you honestly think that children who are ripped from their mothers and placed in foster care will suffer no ill effects, which will end up costing society as well, in the end? You really think it's worth the relatively small amount of money we'll save to return to a society glutted with orphanages, and eventually, street children? Because that is what would certainly happen with the kinds of measures you propose. The children and their needs don't disappear when they're removed from their parents. You're only taking one problem and exchanging it for an even bigger one.

There was a time when we had child labor, overrun orphanages, and children begging in the streets, if they weren't lucky enough to be shipped off to people "adopting" them for free labor. Do you know one of the major reasons why we don't have those things anymore? Welfare programs. We've progressed as a society, fortunately.

[Kickoutthejams23]

38. Child Labor is not acceptable.

We can't allow American factories to compete with China. :sarcasm:

Okay enough of silly.

She only had ONE child when she entered the system over six years ago. She now has four by a multitude of absent or incarcerated (or unknown) fathers. Anyway you slice it that is the failure. That is what is still broken and needs to be corrected before she has anymore children not after. Mandatory birth control, threating to take the current child away, elimination of benefits are sticks to convince this and other young women not to continue to get pregnant with kids they can't afford financially or emotionally. Some carrots needless to say would help as well. Clearly the status quo failed this 16 year old girl when she came in pregnant with her first child. The red flags were there.

[LostinVA]

39. All of your "solutions" are negative... punishments

How about some positive, real long-lasting solutions???

[Pithlet]

42. Any way you slice it

A society that forces sterilization and removes children from their homes merely because they've deemed the parents financially irresponsible isn't going to be a free society by any stretch of the imagination. Assuming you'd see a dime of any of the financial gaines, is it really worth it to you? Is your need to punish people for choices you've decided are irresponsible that great that you're willing to completely trash our Constitution and erase all the progress that has been made?

I don't understand the sarcastic response about China. I don't support their labor practices in the least, and don't think their record on personal freedoms and human rights are anything to imitate or respect. I don't see how supporting social nets for children implies that at all.

[Kickoutthejams23]

46. Obviously no-one supports child Labor.

Except those that buy products made by prisoners and children and indentured individuals (Slaves).

I am not proposing eliminating Welfare or forced sterilization. (Norplant is not sterilization) This is not about what to do with a woman who has four kids she can't support. It is about putting support structures in place so a teenage girl is pregnant with her first child does not become the mother of four. The problem I have is a Welfare system that despite its good intentions allowed(and possibly unintentionally encouraged) this woman to continue having children with no family structure and no outside financial resources. (or more bluntly no father and no job)I don't blame her she was simply following in her own mothers footsteps and might not know any better or different.

Breaking the cycle of poverty is not pain free on an individual basis. The culture of dependence can run strong in those families that have generationaly not worked or had male role models in their households. States should have a free hand to try both supportive (group homes, job training) and punitive measures. Time limits (like any one size fits all answer) doesn't work for all welfare recipients. However we should not stick our collective head in the sand and say the system works when teenage girls continue to have children while under state supervision.

[Pithlet]

48. It's the punitive measures in particular that I strongly oppose.

let's set aside the fact that we disagree on your assessment of the poor who receive assistance, because I don't think I could change your mind in a few posts. Let's focus on rights. Poor people, whether or not you personally feel they got themselves into poverty, have just as much right to control of their own bodies as anyone else. Take it away from them, and you take it away from anyone. If we can force them to use birth control, we can force you to as well. The freedom to decide what medical procedures you do or do not have, or what drugs you do or do not take, should not be based on your financial status, regardless of how that status came to be.

People have a right to raise their children without state interference, as long as they aren't abusing or neglecting them, and that right extends to poor people as well. Take that right away from them, and you take it away from everyone. If they can use financial status to decide your worth as a parent, then they could use other, equally questionable criteria.

Financial status is far too nebulous to be basing personal rights and freedoms on. Particularly since two people can look at one particular circumstance and judge it very differently. We either all have those basic rights, or none of us do. If you feel you are entitled to those rights no matter what, then you have to extend that to everyone else, or be prepared to give them up yourself. Insistt on a society that holds those rights up for everyone, or live in a society that doesn't recognize those rights at all. Start making exceptions, and those rights go up in smoke. I would much rather feed the mouths of babes then trash the rights of their mothers in a fit of judgmental pique, making it much harder to assert my own.

[Lars39]

32. Put your anger where it belongs: *corporate* welfare receives more

tax dollars than social net programs.
Bushco is shoveling every dime they can into the war machine.
The US military budget is more than all the other countries' combined.

[RaRa]

51. "Clap Clap Clap"

I am always "screaming" this when people get their undies in a bunch over social welfare. People can't seem to see the big picture. I'd rather "waste" my tax dollars on a lousy mom - that is have the kids get some money than the boatloads that go to Cheney and his like. Granted, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to address the problems with the programs, but sheesh, if money is the issue, can we look at the real hogs?

[msgadget]

58. And, its corporate welfare when the children of the underpaid

qualify for WIC, food stamps, free breakfast and lunch at school and for Medicaid.

I wonder why the NYT chose this particular recipient to highlight the results of welfare reform. What it says to me - a welfare advocate - is that, darn, under the new system this woman doesn't have it like her mom did. She can't stay home until her kids are school age but must work. Well, duh. This woman, whom I have no disregard for, would serve as a poster child for the Heritage Foundation against welfare benefits. There are women on welfare who haven't gone on to have more children since the reform but who are struggling nonetheless. I really, really wonder what this story was supposed to illustrate and why they chose this young mother over, say, a woman struggling to cope with job, childcare and transportation to meet the requirements of the new system but I guess the NYT couldn't find any of them. Welfare is necessary. Every American child is entitled to food, shelter, health care and an education regardless their birth circumstances. The article went out of its way to show there's nothing wrong with this young woman, that she has no disabilities or addictions...but she was raised in a welfare culture. That's more significant than folks anywhere would like to recognize. The old welfare system was implemented in such a way that it discouraged marriage, savings, honesty and, yes, even personal responsibility for family planning and it's gonna take more than 10 years to overcome the results of that kind of social engineering.

[Matariki]

40. I think there needs to be an intelligent discussion

about personal responsibility in the progressive community. It's a stumbling block in communication between conservatives and progressives, and perhaps among ourselves as well. As progressives we see the root causes the can lead people into dependent situations in the first place, injustices in the distribution of resources, education and so forth. This is where the argument breaks down - where is the line between personal responsibility and societal responsibility?

I want to start a thread about this topic (after some coffee). I've been thinking about it a lot since reading a recent thread about poverty and obesity.

[Pithlet]

47. It's a stumbling block because

conservatives don't recognize that there is societal responsibility to any great degree, and progressives recognize that a person's situation is shaped both by personal responsibility and societal responsibility. Until conservatives are willing to recognize the societal responsibility, that discussion isn't going to get very far, unfortunately.

As far as the discussion on our own side, I think those who advocate removing social safety nets are, at least on that particular issue, no different than the conservatives in that they are also refusing to acknowledge the societal aspect of the debate, or they downplay it significantly. The "It's their fault, they should pay the consequences for the choices they made" mindset tends to be a very stubborn one. The key is getting the "personal responsibility" crowd to look at society's responsibility. And, for whatever reason, they resist that. They want to look at the issue in a punitive fashion, and until they stop looking at it that way, we'll just look like bleeding heart idiots to them. They also ignore, as the conservatives do, what price we all pay for punishing the irresponsible people. The people being punished for irresponsible choices, particularly the children, do not go away because we've decided to turn our backs on them. We responsible ones don't live on an island unto ourselves.

It's not that progressives ignore the personal responsibility. They just recognize that there are many other factors as well. It's that they usually don't look at the issue of poverty as a punitive one. The reasons for poverty are varied, and even with each individual, the circumstances can change. They don't ignore personal responsibility, they just don't oversimplify the matter into deserve/don't deserve. They don't think "If you're poor, you must have done something wrong, so you deserve to suffer." They especially don't think that allowing the suffering won't effect themselves.

I think it would be an intelligent thing to hash this out. I just don't know how far we would get.

[Matariki]

53. Partly because the conversation isn't framed that way

With a conservative I would discuss WHY it's beneficial to society as a whole to have a safety net, equal education, a fair distribution of what ought to be common resources. I have come to realize that there are *a lot* of people who are 'empathy challenged' and just don't respond to stories of other people's difficulties. The question also arises as to WHY a person SHOULD be supported by anyone but themselves - even if they've got a number of kids to support. Many people don't see that as an inaliable right. Unless we are able to understand and answer the WHY of that question, beyond just our empathic response, we've lost the argument.

And as far as discussions with progressives, i'd ask - At what point can you say that people aren't responsible for the choices they make? And define 'safety net'? I also think we need to get the 'society's responsibility' crowd to look at 'personal responsibility'. That crowd resists the idea of certain classes of people acting with any volition, as if all their actions are somehow caused by outside factors. Before you argue with me, let me say I take the middle ground and both extremes irk me. Perhaps the side that denies personal responsibility even more so, because I think that attitude ultimately disempowers people.

[Pithlet]

55. No one claims this:

"That crowd resists the idea of certain classes of people acting with any volition, as if all their actions are somehow caused by outside factors." Do you have any examples of this? Because of all the progressive minded people I've ever known, read, or heard, I've never heard one person ever say anything remotely like this.

The structure of society defines the range of available personal choices. It is not true that there is always a good choice available to everyone. It is also not true that one bad decision should doom a person forever. Racism, sexism, and class are not figments of our imagination. They do constrain the available ranges of choices for people every day. Invoking the personal responsibility fairy does not change that reality. Invoking the personal responsibility fairy does not alleviate us from the moral questions and the practical consequences to society of making a person and all connected to them forever pay the price for one bad decision, which is what ignoring societal consequences and responsibility does.

It isn't disempowering people to acknowledge the reality that things outside of people's control very often affect their lives. It certainly isn't empowering them to ignore them. Using the fig leaf of personal responsibility to deny everyone opportunity because a few might abuse that opportunity is neither morally acceptable or practically efficient. We are much better as a people by trying to help everyone because in the real world, the number of people who abuse that help are far outweighed by the number of people who take advantage of it and the benefits that those people provide society. Even people who sometimes take second, or third, or fourth chances, are still worth the effort because when they do finally take full advantage of the opportunity, the payoff for society is great. The welfare queen is a figment of Republican imagination, and I have generally found it bad to make policy decisions on the basis of what Republicans imagine.

You want to know how you can tell who is serious about poverty and personal responsibility? It is the side that attempts to remove the distortions of societal responsibility. It is progressives that fight for day care so that people can go to work and know their children are safe. It is progressives that fight for universal access to education, so that people have an opportunity to do everything their intellect can allow them to do. It is progressives that fight for universal health care so that no one has to choose between their child's health and a shitty job. It is progressives who fight for a safety net so that the person who lost a job through no fault of their own isn't financially destroyed before they can find a new one. Those people aren't sitting back and whining about personal responsibilty.

I'm not going to take the middle position on providing safety nets when society is nowhere near the middle to begin with in providing them. Unless and until conservatives are willing to do exactly those things I mentioned above, unless and until conservatives are willing to absolutely level the playing field, then blathering on about personal responsibility is nothing more than a disingenuous dodge. Because when some people have advantages and privilege that others do not, then the matter of personal responsibility doesn't really enter into the equations when discussing what programs to cut. When we live in a society where a man like George W. Bush, who has failed at everything he has ever done, can become President, but a single mother in the Army Reserves can lose her home because she was called away for 18 months and then lost her job, this fetish for personal responsibility is nothing more than the defense of George W Bush and a direct attack on that single mother.

[Matariki]

57. i can point to examples on this board.

what got me thinking about it was a thread on obesity and poverty. To read some of the posts you would think that people believed that poor people had absolutely no control over what they were eating and that some outside force had all the control. I don't want to rehash that thread. I've seem similar arguments around people having numerous children and how they are able to subsequently care for them. As if they had nothing to do with it.

Does the phrase 'personal responsibility fairy' mean that you think personal responsibility is a fairy tale? A non-existent thing? It seems like a disparaging choice of words. And your last sentence is outright rude. I had to consider whether you are worth answering or not.

I've found that people who blame everything that 'happens' to them on outside forces are people who passively let things happen to them. It makes their lives miserable. No one 'owes' it to you to take care of you, except for yourself. But a decent society will make it easy for people to take care of themselves, certainly not make it harder, and will take care of the few people who are too sick to do it themselves. That doesn't make personal responsibility a fairy tale.

I actually agree with a good deal of what you are saying. Individuals don't live in a vacuum. I am in utter agreement that we would all be better off with affordable or subsidized daycare, universal health care, a public education system whose funding isn't dependant on local taxes (so that children in wealthy neighborhoods get better educations), affordable or free secondary education, housing that's what it's intended for - shelter, not an investment. And so on. All this would benefit everyone, rich and poor, for numerous reasons.

I ask you to define safety net. Is a safety net something for people who run into hard times, or permanent dependency? Explain to me *why* 'society' should take care of people on a permanent basis who aren't sick and are able to work and contribute to society themselves. That was the idea of Clinton's welfare reform - to have it be a safety net so people could transition to taking care of themselves, rather than exist as a long term situation of dependency.

[Pithlet]

63. I can't ask you

to post the examples you saw on DU, because that's breaking the rules. But, I don't think the example you allude to is anything like "People have no control at all". In all my years of moderating, I've never seen what you claim people say here. I think it is your misinterpretation, filtered through misconceptions of who DUers are and what they stand for.

Let's start with your comment about poverty and obesity. Poor people tend to eat diets that are not very healthy because in this country it is cheaper to buy food that is not as healthy than it is to buy healthy food. If you work two jobs, and time is at a premium, finding healthy, prepackaged food is next to impossible anywhere in the country, especially in poor neighborhoods. This is why I refer to your personal responsibility line as a fairy tale. Because the notion, for example, that working poor have the same access to good food that the rest of us do is a fairy tale. Personal responsibility means very little in a situation where your choices are so limited. What you seem to be doing is the equivalent of putting a blind person in a library without any braille books, and then complaining that they never finished the novel you recommended.

It's not that I don't think people should be personally responsible. It's that I'm never going to ask them to be personally responsible for choices they never had, or were severely limited to begin with. It's nice that you recognize society's problems, but it does no good to acknowledge that they exist if you're just going to throw out personal responsibility as an excuse to do nothing about it.

By social safety net I mean our entire existing welfare system. Everything from food stamps to subsidized education loans to tax breaks for buying a home. I don't think I need to define that; I'm sure you're aware of it. So, the question isn't what the social safety net is. That is well known. The question is what would you take away.

I have no problem spending the very very little amount of money it takes to keep people from starving and freezing to death for quite some time. The kinds of people that are at the very bottom of the economic ladder very often lack either opportunity or have other significant problems. I don't have a problem with attempting to help those people for several chances. Sometimes it takes time for opportunity to present itself, and it often takes more than one chance to stick with psychiatric care, or get off drugs and alcohol. I don't find it morally acceptable or terribly practical to throw away those people at the first hint that they may need more than one chance. Because people very often do get out of those circumstances, and the payoff, when they do, is worth substantially more to society then the meager amounts that we spend helping them get to that spot.

[Kickoutthejams23]

52. Looking forward to that post.

I have trouble with it myself. It seems to almost be a contest between my best intentions and my heart vs. my life experience dealing with people.


PS. Love your art

[Matariki]

59. finally got enough coffee in me ;-)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1965456

ps. thanks. i'll have new work up in October.

[earth mom]

49. Your anger should be directed at a society like ours who

hasn't helped the poor in the first place! You should realize that the poor are locked in a viscous cycle of poverty with little or substandard education, no resources and no connections to the larger world outside. Where people, mostly men, turn to crime to support themselves and their families only to end up in jail leaving the women weighed down with children and trying to support themselves!!!

You want to be angry?! Be angry at that!

But don't be angry at the people who live it every day! :grr:

[Kickoutthejams23]

50. My anger is directed at that.

But clearly the path this girl is on is not a road out of poverty and despair. I'm not really blaming the girl here. (though my initial reaction was certainly skewed that way) But when a sixteen year old girl gets pregnant with no father in sight an adult needs to step up to the plate. Her mother was clearly incapable (a welfare recipient herself with six children living at home and whose other daughter has 2 out of wedlock children as well)And I'm afraid the Social Workers were either overworked (caseloads are steep) disinclined or simply didn't have the tools to do the job (requiring birth control for benefits is not a violation of human rights it seems more a common sense first step.)

[Stargazer99]

4. The only solution I can figure would be

intense counseling for the mother. It is obvious something is missing in this person. The children will suffer no matter what we as a society don't need to make it any worse than it is for them. So often you will find it is a matter of a father that was not there for his child or a father that used the child for his own sexual use. Seems like this mother is looking for love in the wrong places. Lacking a truly loving father guarantees this problem to rear its ugly head. I've often thought we need a system that would help and protect children when families produce misery and problems....could be a solution for the present crop of children this woman has. Individuality my arse...we are part of a great nation..what affects one affects all.
I might add this situation of this mother is not the norm even for welfare.

[FormerOstrich]

5. Something has to be done...

to impress upon these girls to quit having babies. Are they offered birth control (such as an implant)? Next it seems that there should be more "communal" environments where they could help each other. Do we offer the men in these womens life vasectomies?

I don't know what the answers are, but clearly we haven't gotten close to resolving the issues, but it seems the first step is for them to quit having children until they are on firmer footing. Obviously, it becomes a perpetual cycle of which is nearly impossible (or they think it is) for people to break out of.

[Stargazer99]

6. If you are going to advise young women to quit having babies

you'd better do something about the Fundies. The Fundies advocate waiting until marriage and as anyone with an inch of watching reality knows this is about as dumb as it gets. The whole society shoves sex down our throats 24/7 and we expect the teens to be chaiste? Sex sells and it goes back to our capitalistic system (profit for profit sake) no matter who or what it hurts. The fact the Viagara is covered by insurance and contraception has not been says worlds about where we really are as a society. I believe holding off sex until one is older and responsible is ideal and healthy, but that is not a realistic workable ideal in this culture for many people.

[don954]

7. ya, back home in Texas

there was a program being offered by a family planning group for free Norplant implants to teenagers. The group got tared and feathered, i think they got some girl to fake the consent form and then sued them out of existence...

[Psephos]

9. Good point about fundies, but I doubt welfare moms are listening anyway

Major disconnect between those two cultures.

IMO, naturally.

Peace.

[LostinVA]

21. I actually think the "communal living" idea is a grand one!

With counseling, mentors, childcare, bonding and understanding. THAT would probably work for many of the tru;y desperate cases.

But hey! According to the Feds and some DUers, all the skank needs to do is keep her legs closed, get off her ass, and get a job.

[bluestateguy]

10. I don't mean to sound hard core here

but if she's on welfare, what is she doing having another baby?

Children are nice, but economically they are burdensome.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

44. She only had one when she started welfare

She's had/having *three babies* while she's been on welfare.

[acmavm]

12. I agree something has to be done about this woman and the way she

keeps having these kids. But I also want to know WHERE ARE THE FRIGGING FATHERS??????????????????????????????????????????

Track their asses down and make them responsible too.

[Sgent]

24. In prison

the father of 2 of this lady's 4 is in prison.

[acmavm]

25. That's one down, two more to go.

[justgamma]

13. Suddenly the Cons like timetables.

For welfare, but why wouldn't it work for Iraq.

"she has been warned, if she does not resume full-time job-skill classes and a job search within eight and a half months after her new baby is born."

[liberalhistorian]

14. Too bad Bush never got

job-skills training or ever had to do a job search!

[LeftyMom]

64. And the gov't will pay for infant child care that costs more than paying

her to mind her own kids, in the hope that she'll get some burger-flipping job that pays so little her daycare costs will still be subsidized. But she'll be a welfare to work sucess, because she's got a job, damn it! Nevermind that it's costing many times more than letting her stay home until the kids are old enough to get on the schoolbus would.

Getting an education to break the cycle of poverty doesn't count as work anymore, either.

[rodeodance]

15. Bill Clinton praises welfare reform in yesterdays op-ed (here).

Original message
Anyone catch Bubba's op-ed in the NYT?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/22/opinion/22clinton.htm...

How We Ended Welfare, Together

TEN years ago today I signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. By then I had long been committed to welfare reform. As a governor, I oversaw a workfare experiment in Arkansas in 1980 and represented the National Governors Association in working with Congress and the Reagan administration to draft the welfare reform bill enacted in 1988.

snip

In the past decade, welfare rolls have dropped substantially, from 12.2 million in 1996 to 4.5 million today. At the same time, caseloads declined by 54 percent. Sixty percent of mothers who left welfare found work, far surpassing predictions of experts. Through the Welfare to Work Partnership, which my administration started to speed the transition to employment, more than 20,000 businesses hired 1.1 million former welfare recipients. Welfare reform has proved a great success, and I am grateful to the Democrats and Republicans who had the courage to work together to take bold action.

snip

The results: child poverty dropped to 16.2 percent in 2000, the lowest rate since 1979, and in 2000, the percentage of Americans on welfare reached its lowest level in four decades. Overall, 100 times as many people moved out of poverty and into the middle class during our eight years as in the previous 12. Of course the booming economy helped, but the empowerment policies made a big difference.

Regarding the politics of welfare reform, there is a great lesson to be learned, particularly in today’s hyper-partisan environment, where the Republican leadership forces bills through Congress without even a hint of bipartisanship. Simply put, welfare reform worked because we all worked together. The 1996 Welfare Act shows us how much we can achieve when both parties bring their best ideas to the negotiating table and focus on doing what is best for the country.

etc

-----------------

[rodeodance]

16. but he also addresses the NEW phase II Repug amendments:

The recent welfare reform amendments, largely Republican-only initiatives, cut back on states’ ability to devise their own programs. They also disallowed hours spent pursuing an education from counting against required weekly work hours. I doubt they will have the positive impact of the original legislation.

We should address the inadequacies of the latest welfare reauthorization in a bipartisan manner, by giving states the flexibility to consider higher education as a category of “work,” and by doing more to help people get the education they need and the jobs they deserve. And perhaps even more than additional welfare reform, we need to raise the minimum wage, create more good jobs through a commitment to a clean energy future and enact tax and other policies to support families in work and child-rearing.

Ten years ago, neither side got exactly what it had hoped for. While we compromised to reach an agreement, we never betrayed our principles and we passed a bill that worked and stood the test of time. This style of cooperative governing is anything but a sign of weakness. It is a measure of strength, deeply rooted in our Constitution and history, and essential to the better future that all Americans deserve, Republicans and Democrats alike.

[rodeodance]

17. education as a category of “work,--has be cut by Repug amendments:

The recent welfare reform amendments, largely Republican-only initiatives, cut back on states’ ability to devise their own programs. They also disallowed hours spent pursuing an education from counting against required weekly work hours. I doubt they will have the positive impact of the original legislation.

We should address the inadequacies of the latest welfare reauthorization in a bipartisan manner, by giving states the flexibility to consider higher education as a category of “work,” and by doing more to help people get the education they need and the jobs they deserve. And perhaps even more than additional welfare reform, we need to raise the minimum wage, create more good jobs through a commitment to a clean energy future and enact tax and other policies to support families in work and child-rearing.

[Lindacooks]

27. Those statements are inaccurate - and notice how they stop at 2000.

Child poverty and poverty in general in this country has INCREASED since 2000. And more people are moving OUT of the middle class and INTO poverty than the other way around.

[Debau2005]

22. I was a Welfare Social Worker

for a number of years. A lot of these women are from broken families, abusive situations, or foster care. They are not taught at a young age to have pride in themselves. I had many a teenage girl tell me that no one loves her so she wanted a baby that would love her.

The basic issues of why women have baby after baby has to be addressed. They often feel like it is the only skill they have. Also remember they end up with men that make promises they will not keep, just to get the woman to fall for them. Most of these "woman" are still very young and impressionable.

Sending them to work for minimum wage or skill training for a minimum wage job is not the answer. As a lot of DU'ers know minimum wage does not provide basic necessities most of the time, much less, helping people get a leg up. Try finding suitable day care for minimum wage. And would you want to leave your child with someone that a minimum wage salary afforded you?? Probably not.

We can't offer birth control, this administration would have a stroke. Women should wait until marriage to have sex, remember the Conservative Mantra these days!!

And please don't think that they can make a living on AFDC and Food Stamps, they can't. I am infuriated when I read stories about Welfare Queens driving Cadillacs. I never had anyone close to this in my case load. And I don't recall any other Social Worker I talked to having one either.

The most infuriating were the businesses that hired and tried to take advantage of welfare recipients! Super Walmart being the most heinous! At least in my area. They came into town, opened a Super 24 hour store and asked us for employee referrals. We sent a large number of people to them. Walmart promised them stable hours so they could arrange for childcare. Many wanted to work nights, so they could be at home with their kids during the day or take some more training. Four weeks into their new employment, Walmart changed the policy with no notice and required swing shifts. How is anyone supposed to find adequated child care working swing shifts?


I think before anyone throws stones they should walk a mile...so to speak.

[ConcernedCanuk]

28. "they end up with men that make promises they will not keep" - no sh*t!!

.
.
.

A poor person, especially if they are insecure and craving affection - will opt for (dare I say it?) SEX!

It feels good, and the whole world's troubles disappear for a brief period in time.

These are poor people, NOT stupid people, but many cannot afford or are mal-informed about contraception, and some just don't care!

That is a fault of our society, and it is not restricted or special to the USA

But in North America the breakdown of the family unit has led to children wanting desperately to get out of their parents house

And yes,

Some will have children just to achieve that goal

It's a PARENTING failure IMO

[Doremus]

23. Put it in perspective.

Granted, if a parent were enabling a child to self-destruct like in the above story, Dr. Phil would rake them over the coals and call them dysfunctional.

HOWEVER, the vast majority of people availing themselves of social safety nets do so because of legitimate need, certainly more legitimate than ExxonMobile, Halliburton or any of the long list of corporate entities on the dole.

The humans' welfare checks have many fewer digits too.

[noonwitch]

29. Welfare is no way to live

I've been working in the child welfare system for almost 20 years, in a city with a lot of poverty.

ADC, when it was in existence, provided food, medicaid, and enough money to keep a roof over one's head. It never allows for people to get ahead, and it doesn't provide enough money to get out of poverty for good-it's not meant to. It wasn't originally meant to be a trap, either, it was meant to help people get by for a little while until they could get a good job. Issues of insurance aside, one could make more money working 40 hours a week at McDonald's anyways.

Welfare reform without a safety net side to it, and without a good educational/vocational training component, is not effective, either. But healthy people need to work, it is good for one's mental health to get out to a job every day.

[hotforteacher]

30. Refugs LOVE simple answers...it's what they understand

If these jackasses are actually going to peer into the scope of poverty and really, ACTUALLY want to do something about, they are going to understand that the problem is more of a constellation than a bullseye. There is so much abuse, neglect, mal-nourishment of body and mind, and depression...fuck these well-fed assholes and their quippiness.

Anyone that has worked within communities that have generational poverty knows that there are no quick fixes. Dr. Ruby Paine has done extensive research on this subject, and has outline the general skill that they need to learn, and the ones they need to unlearn in order to surmount generational poverty. Stuff that we take for granted, like register switching (going from formal to informal ways of speaking depending upon to whom and where we are).

The parents that do get out of it generally will not thrive, but they will break an important part of the cycle, which is just as difficult as breaking cycles of abuse. Tell someone to stop hating themselves when they are barely coherent of the fact and see how fast they quit. It isn't going to happen like that, friends. It is retraining the brain circuitry. It takes serious cognitive behavioral therapy. It takes time and folks that are willing to see it through from beginning to end.

Unfortunately, with serious gouges in education and social services, that will not happen. People in poverty respond better (as do most people) to consistent care and a familial setting. You can't have that when teachers come and go, mental health care being practically non-existent, and people looking at you like you are defective.

Tell me that these warmongers are actually concerned about our own most vulnerable citizens...this is as likely as my virginity coming back.

[underpants]

31. Welcome to DU

:hi:

Great post

[MissB]

33. What underpants said.

Welcome!

[Misunderestimator]

34. Damn good post!

:thumbsup:

[hotforteacher]

36. Thank you, all three yous!

I wish that something more than sheer anger propelled me to post more (other than fluff, that is), but them's the cards right now. It's good to hear dialog concerning it, because I tend to get enmeshed in the conversations with my cohorts and we all speak the same language.

*summons the spirit of Jonathan Kozol and gets back to lesson planning*

[fjc]

45. Bill Clinton's reply... (Dup) Sorry

[Marrah_G]

54. This is such a tough issue

You cannot just throw people out on the streets to starve. Having no incentives to NOT have more children doesn't work either. I think if a young mother finds herself pregnant and need of assistance it should be given. But not just housing and food. They need parenting skills, financial skills and an education so they can stand up make a difference in the world.

We need less corporate welfare and more incentives for young women who stay clean from drugs and alcohol, who choose birth control (free free free) until they are ready. Give them classes, groups, life skills programs and most of all, a college education in return. Give them a whole village of support to give them hope and a reason to look forward to a brighter future. Education is the key.

I took a parenting class when one of my toddlers had behavior problems and I didn't know what to do. I got so much out of that class, but it was filled with people who were just there by court order so they could get their kids back. Opening those classes up for free to young mothers, maybe even mandatory would be one small thing that could make a huge difference. It cost me 175 dollars 10 years ago, surely there is a way to get this to them for free.

Offer groups where young mothers can go to vent and share, or maybe even take day trips to places they otherwise might never see.

Offer classes where they can learn to budget and bank the little that they do have and also perhaps realize that right now they can't afford to have more children.

Offer Classes at community colleges where they can get a real degree and not have to take a walmart job.

Talk to high school groups about volunteering time to babysit during the classes. This would not only be good for the moms, but also good for the babysitters.

Just a few rambling thoughts.

I'd like to see things get back to helping each other, instead of the current view of "sink or swim". Helping is not just handing out money and food, help is providing the choices for a better life.

Breaking the cycle doesn't work by taking away vital support, breaking the cycle will come when we change the way we go about helping those in need. These women need to be surrounded by positives and told "you can do this, and we will help". They need to feel they are loved and that they can succeed.

[Kickoutthejams23]

56. Great post

Wish I could think of positive things like you do rather than just punishment.

[LostinVA]

61. Damn good post -- welcome to DU, Newbie!

[Marrah_G]

62. Thanks LostinVA

:)

[Superman Returns]

60. Why does she keep having children?

She ever heard of protection?