Quote:
Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy
????? Maybe I missed something, but the only comments regarding welfare related to programs that provide more public assistance per child.
|
The opening post blamed this on Welfare specifically. Yes, I noticed the additional posts that assumed this difference is caused by welfare families having more kids. But we don't even have data to back that up. Just innuendo. Specifically, it is imagined that the extra Welfare income from having additional kids is motivating poor women to have larger families. I'm sure this is a motivation for some women. How many? I dunno.
And then there is the observation that poor folks have more leisure time. And fewer bucks for outside entertainment. And perhaps alcohol is in the mix, impacting the pregnancy rate and the poor economic habits.
This is where I've got a concern. I hear all about how removing Welfare will solve these problems. I think, like Livi, that this is disguised greed. Either that or failure to understand social mechanisms by taking a closer look.
You see, when an alcoholic woman shows poor employment behavior and has several kids and no husband, the existence of Welfare might be part of the enabling resources but it's just a part of the whole picture. A minor part, frankly. Withdraw of Welfare would provide some motivation. But that alone is not likely to solve the problem. In fact, overall, to make this woman productive and free and happy will likely take MORE resources than Welfare. And if we were to withdraw Welfare and not provide those other resources, then I think we will pay in other ways and this option would be the most expensive of the three.
And the presence of kids changes things substantially. We might have loads of disdain for this lazy woman but if she has kids, then there are several gnarly questions that few people have the chutzpah to deny. Responsibility to the innocent kids with the good-for-nothing Mom. Interest in how much it's going to cost to house those kids in jail when they grow up, if better behavior is not modeled for them.
And so, I think it is not a simple problem with a simple fix. or an inexpensive one. But it is an opportunity to both take care of our neighbors in a moral sense, and also to take control of a part of society that is costing too much. You see, I believe that the proper expenditires now will cause substantial increases in these peoples' contributions to society and save a TON of money in the future. And the really frustrating thing is that Welfare is not that expensive and in the greater scheme of a federal budget, addressing the problem properly would not cost all that much money.
It's like throwing a blue tarp over your roof when it leaks. Sure, its cheap. But it's not a solution. You guys would research and find some good roofing material and make sure the installers did a proper job. Because you know the value of an investment. You know how to solve problems properly. Why wouldn't you apply that wisdom to social problems too? Greed, I think. Short sightedness.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.