Do you think someone receiving assistance should continue to have children?

[barkley]

I am impressed with your knowledge of how the system worked in your state. Your points make me think that perhaps privatizing our own system will be the only way we will begin to see any true reform.

The only thing I must disagree with (or for that matter, feel qualified to disagree with) is that the children I'm speaking of do get individual checks. I work at Family Court (8 years there), was a foster parent for 12 years, am an adoptive parent, and was a social worker with out state's CPS for 13 years. I have SEEN these checks and no, they are not foster care payments or any type of Social Security checks. They are AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) checks and there is a different check for each individual child. I don't know if this funding is federal or distributed through the state, but I do know that each child in the family receives their own check.

ETA: Rereading your post, I realized that you were referring to having our CPS agency go private. That is, unfortunately, not likely to happen, as our state is now held up as a shing example of how it SHOULD be done. This being after we spend many years under a Federal Consent Decree before being released only earlier this year having been found to be in compliance with ASFA guidelines. Those of us within the system know that this is a joke.

i'm not disputing anything you've said. i'm simply amazed that any state would expend funds on individual checks for children in the same afdc (you're showing your longevity working in the system i still call it by the same despite it being called tanf for several years) assistance units. most states that issued entire a.u. checks eliminated the traditional twice monthly payments in the 90's because it cost approx. $10 per case (and at least in the county i worked for that equated to 10-12 people i supervised times 12 units times 7 buildings times 58 counties state wide ). i can't imagine what the cost would be with individual checks-we had au's up to 20 people my lord-that would be $200 per month in administrative costs just for check creation and issuance on one case i'm also amazed that any state still issues actual checks. the welfare reform act included automated benefit criteria-and i thought california was one of the very last to finaly get it going (we had a major battle interstate that finaly resulted in 4 separate systems-none of which 'talk' to each other).
my hope is that no aspect of 'welfare' is ever privatized. i saw the horrendous disservice to adults and children when my county reduced training for eligibility staff from 4 months to 4 weeks. as it is the bulk of child protective services staff are inexperienced newbies who only stay on long enuf to qualify such that much of their student loans are 'forgiven', then move on to more lucrative private practice- so cases get shuffled from worker to worker and sadly many children do not receive the attention they deserve.

i will say that one of the best benefits to cps that occured to our county was when a former director retired and then rehired as curriculum director of one of the state's top msw programs. she re-tooled the program (within lic. confines) such that participants and grads. were given a much more realistic and accurate education and intership vs. what my previous grads. received.

 

[ForTheLoveofDisney]

No, I do not think you should continue to have children if you are on assistance. My sister-in-law and brother-in-law are the biggest offenders of this!! And it pisses me off! They can NOT afford the children they have (my in-laws are always "helping" them out) and they are currently receiving WIC and medical aid and food stamps. Before my SIL had this last baby in November (her 5th) she told me she had started looking for a job because they were barely getting by but then she found out she was pregnant and felt that it was God telling her she shouldn't work. I mean it couldn't have possibly meant she should have used some sort of bc whether it be pill form or Natural Family Planning! And incidently, my brother in law got two weeks vacation from his job this year so they're taking a two week vacation and spending part of their time in Michigan and part of their time in South Carolina where BIL's family is from. I don't know if they receive any assistance in the form of a welfare check (which I understand does not increase with the number of children you have?? per this thread) but they do receive WIC which she has gotten for ALL 5 children and Medical assistance which covers all 5 children and food stamps that now includes the new baby. All of which comes from the tax payer's dollar and it is aggravating!!

And, I keep reading over and over again about how we can't "dictate" to people to go to work or take birth control but why can't we if we're helping to support them?? It's like when a kid lives at home and doesn't agree with his parents. The one who pays the bills has the power and in this example it's the parents. If the kid doesn't like it, he's always welcome (when he's 18) to get the heck out the house, get a job and make his own decisions! If he's not willing to do that then he plays by the house rules. I also have a 23 year old niece who still lives off of mommy and daddy's dime because she's supposedly going to school. My inlaws are very strict in their religion and they believe that women should wear skirts, not cut their hair, wear no makeup or jewelry, no t.v. Anyway, at 23 my niece does NOT agree with this. Doesn't think it's fair! Feels it's against her rights at 23!! I can agree that at 23 you should be able to choose if you want to wear pants or not, if you want to get your hair cut or whatever. I can agree. HOWEVER, if at 23 she wants to do all these things that she has a "right" to do then get the heck out of her parents' house, get a job, buy her own darn food, pay her own car insurance and get her own place!! Then she can have say with her rights. Until then I guess she plays by house rules as long as she's taking the parents' money.

I just see this whole welfare thing the same way. It's the government's (taxpayers') money. They're coming to the government for a handout, assistance whatever you want to call it!! If you want to use government assistance then you follow some of the stipulations that could be set in place like birth control or going to work or whatever. No one's making them get the assistance they choose to do so for WHATEVER reason (sometimes it is a VERY REAL need) but still it is a choice. People may say they had no choice but this is the U.S. and there's ALWAYS a choice. Assistance may be the best choice at the time but still it's a CHOICE not forced on them. If they choose to accept the assistance then the recipients have to agree to the terms. Just like a loan. No one makes you get a loan but if you choose to get a loan there are certain terms and conditions that you must meet.

I could go on and on but basically, I'm not going to change anybody's mind. I do think that assistance is necessary at times, I know there are people out there who at times really need it, it's the best choice for them at the time. But I'm so sick of people playing the system and I've personally known two people who did admit to playing it and even suggested that they could "teach" me how to do it.

It's just that I have no say where my taxpayer dollars go. I didn't say I didn't have a choice . I could choose not to pay my taxes and then I would suffer the consequences and go to jail so it's the best choice for me to just pay my taxes (but I digress) but I have no say but yet we can't impose any type of stipulations, terms, rules whatever on people who actually get the assistance. I'm basically just told this is where your money is going but we can't tell people on assistance that they MUST take bc because it's against their rights??? What about my rights?? It's just crazy.

 

[bookgirl]

I don't have a problem with someone getting assistance, but I do believe that once you go on assistance you get no more money for more children. Your job doesn't give you a raise for having kids, why should welfare. Once you get an amount that is all you get. I also think there should be a time limit.

 

[JennyMominRI]

Thanks for the explanation! I agree if tax dollars are going into it, it may as well be welfare!

I believe my VA disability pay comes from tax dollars.. Would you consider that welfare?

 

[ForTheLoveofDisney]

I believe my VA disability pay comes from tax dollars.. Would you consider that welfare?

I don't believe this would be welfare AT ALL. You provided a service, did a job, during your time in the service. Thank you for that I (personally) see it like when a person retires from a company or a state job they receive a pension and retirement benefits. You just happened to work for the government (cause the military isn't private sector) which is tax payer monies.

 

[JennyMominRI]

I don't believe this would be welfare AT ALL. You provided a service, did a job, during your time in the service. Thank you for that I (personally) see it like when a person retires from a company or a state job they receive a pension and retirement benefits. You just happened to work for the government (cause the military isn't private sector) which is tax payer monies.

I was just curious because I have had a couple of people make comments over the years , like I'm living on the dole.

 

[BellePrincessBelle]

I believe my VA disability pay comes from tax dollars.. Would you consider that welfare?

Disability that you earned through your service to the government is not like welfare. Taking something because you're too lazy or just because you have more kids than your income can support is very different. You actually earned your check these people do not unless having babies = earning their keep.

 

[ducklite]

I believe my VA disability pay comes from tax dollars.. Would you consider that welfare?

No. Neither is social security retirement, and in some cases social security disability insurance (although there are plenty playing that system as well.)

You've earned your VA disability check through service to your country. Huge difference.

Anne

 

[disneyjunkie]

Disability that you earned through your service to the government is not like welfare. Taking something because you're too lazy or just because you have more kids than your income can support is very different. You actually earned your check these people do not unless having babies = earning their keep.

 

[goofygirl]

I was just curious because I have had a couple of people make comments over the years , like I'm living on the dole.

Wow. I can't believe they said that to you!

Of all people, it's the vets that deserve it the most, and I think it's a disgrace when they DON'T get benefits, or receive inferior healthcare (like with Walter Reed, etc).

 

[froglady]

I believe my VA disability pay comes from tax dollars.. Would you consider that welfare?

Your paycheck, when you were active duty, also came from the government. Not the same thing as welfare, food stamps, etc. You put your life on the line (or at least, on hold) to EARN your benefits.

 

[CEDmom]

I believe my VA disability pay comes from tax dollars.. Would you consider that welfare?

Oh Jenny, no it's not the same thing at all. I see that as akin to social security. My brothers and I received VA death benefits for many years(until we were 18) after our dad died and my mom continues to receive them today. It was something my dad earned serving his country and you earned as well.

 

[JennyMominRI]

BTW, I'm not talking about the OP specificlly, just in general..It doesn't sound like this behavior is the norm for her little girl.

 

[froglady]

I may one of a small number of forum members who was around for the "birth" of welfare. (and Medicare, medicaid, etc) It was the Great Society, and the "War on Poverty."

I was one of 5 children of a factory worker. My parents really couldn't afford to raise us all, but guess what? No bc pill, no abortion, so women were having children they couldn't afford. No welfare or subsidized housing, so families like mine were living in a one bedroom house with no central heat or hot water heater. (A/C? Not even an option) 4 boys in one room with 2 sets of bunk beds; parents sleeping in a pull out sofa in the living room, me sleeping on a sunporch with lots of covers and no privacy.

We all wore hand me downs, didn't have vacations, and my mother grew her own vegetables and raised chickens. Local charities would help out at Christmas.

Once I was weaned, my mother worked off shifts so that there was always an adult in the home. My father worked 7 days a week to collect overtime.

This was the way it was for many, many families in the Northeast, especially after factories were closed, and jobs were "outsourced" to Southern workers who would work for less. It was hard, and embarrasing, but we survived....without government help. (other than public school educations)

I campaigned for safer, more effective birth control, and legalized abortion, because I did not want to see another generation of women having to raise children they couldn't afford. I felt that making grants, loans, etc available to ALL students would stop the cycle of poverty. I felt that allowing girls who "made a mistake" to remain in school would give them the chance to escape dooming their child to a life of poverty.

I truly believed that in the future, every child would be born to parents who were ready, willing, and able to care for him/her, because there would be no reason to do it any other way.

God, I was naive.

 

[Mary2e]

This is the story of many women of your generation.

First of all, let me thank you for making it easier for the generations following you.

Too bad the assistance that was provided ended up being a crutch to some rather than the hand up as was intended.

 

[froglady]

This is the story of many women of your generation.

First of all, let me thank you for making it easier for the generations following you.

Too bad the assistance that was provided ended up being a crutch to some rather than the hand up as was intended.

I really believed that as soon as we empowered women to have control over their bodies, and offered them the same educational/employment opportunities and expectations as men, they would no longer be at the mercy of others...be it their spouse, boyfriends, fathers, or the government. I'm not saying that things are truly equal yet, but they're light years from what I experienced.

I've seen attitudes change from treating an unwed mother like a social pariah (so much so that young women either married too young, went into homes for unwed mothers before giving their children up for adoption, or risked their lives going to back street abortionists) to treating it as the norm. And if neither parent can afford it? No worry, the government will make sure your child doesn't starve.

I don't want to go back to the days of orphanages and tragedy ala "Angela's Ashes," (which could have been my father's story, and was close to my own) but surely there has to be middle ground somewhere?

 

[bord1niowa]

A simple solution to welfare has already been tried and it worked. Tommy Thompson, when he was governor of Wisconsin initiated the rule that if you are on welfare and collect money, 4 days a week, you will work for the government doing some type of job, usually ones that are not very desirable, like separating the garbage or sweeping and mopping floors at the courthouses. It's amazing how fast some people got regular paying jobs when they realized they would have to do that to earn their keep. I think having more kids and getting increases in the amount you get is a vicious cycle for some. I have seen entire families spending their entire lives on welfare. They know how to work the system. Even with the new rules. I say, put in those rules of having to work separating garbage or sweeping floors, it'll save the counties and cities money to boot.

 

[DisneyMommyMichelle]

A simple solution to welfare has already been tried and it worked. Tommy Thompson, when he was governor of Wisconsin initiated the rule that if you are on welfare and collect money, 4 days a week, you will work for the government doing some type of job, usually ones that are not very desirable, like separating the garbage or sweeping and mopping floors at the courthouses. It's amazing how fast some people got regular paying jobs when they realized they would have to do that to earn their keep. I think having more kids and getting increases in the amount you get is a vicious cycle for some. I have seen entire families spending their entire lives on welfare. They know how to work the system. Even with the new rules. I say, put in those rules of having to work separating garbage or sweeping floors, it'll save the counties and cities money to boot.
__________________

WOW! I didn't know this! What a wonderful idea this is!

 

[DisneyMommyMichelle]

I believe my VA disability pay comes from tax dollars.. Would you consider that welfare?
__________________

Nope!! You worked for it Not just sat around and had babies and then stuck out your hand

 

[poohandwendy]

A simple solution to welfare has already been tried and it worked. Tommy Thompson, when he was governor of Wisconsin initiated the rule that if you are on welfare and collect money, 4 days a week, you will work for the government doing some type of job, usually ones that are not very desirable, like separating the garbage or sweeping and mopping floors at the courthouses. It's amazing how fast some people got regular paying jobs when they realized they would have to do that to earn their keep. I think having more kids and getting increases in the amount you get is a vicious cycle for some. I have seen entire families spending their entire lives on welfare. They know how to work the system. Even with the new rules. I say, put in those rules of having to work separating garbage or sweeping floors, it'll save the counties and cities money to boot.

I absolutely agree with and applaud this idea.

I am not sure what the downside is, other than forcing unwilling people to earn their way. I truly believe that people take care of and respect what they earn. I believe that the only solution to generational welfare is making it less appealing than getting a job.

As I said earlier, would you rather put in 40 hours for welfare benefits, where someone else chooses your job and there is no possibility of advancement/more money? Or would you rather put in 40 hours in a job of your choosing where there is the possibility of advancement/more money? It's a no-brainer to me.