The Myth of the Welfare Queen

Here is a book that I am reading right now. It is very interesting.

This book was written around the time of the welfare reform debate that polarized Congress in America.

The book focuses on two "welfare" mothers--one named Cheri, the other named Odessa. They both live in N. Philadelphia and struggle with making ends meet. Chei is an activist, who starts demonstrations demanding housing for the people she advocates for. However, as the book continues, the city tires of her and doesn't want to budge. Odessa has to raise her children and grandchildren and their children.

As I read this book I find it very interesting. The part about Odessa I find more interesting, as all Cheri really does is protest. Odessa has to deal with indifferent bureaucrats, children who have drug problems, teachers who don't care, professionals who are distant, drug dealers, and crime. She has to squeeze every cent of her welfare check to make ends meet for her extended children.

Odessa has to go trash picking through NE Philadelphia to find appliances and belongings for her home. A lot of the junk the people throw out tends to still be in good shape. She trash picks the clothes for children and grandchildren.

The impression that I get from this book is that people on welfare work very hard; and while there are those recipients who are lazy--Odessa's daughters, Iesha and Brenda fall under this rubric--the rest of them are doing the best they can.

Some of the people Cheri advocates for get apartments in NE Philadelphia. The white neighbors treat them horribly. Their children are ostacized by the kids in the community.

I get several reactions form this book. The first thing thought that comes to mind is the problems of drugs and alcohol. They have a criminal grasp on these impoverished communities. Truly, if the majority of the people in this book could stay clean or sober, or at least keep their addictions under control, it would be much easier to help them. I am not an advocate for legalization, because I doubt it would solve the problems; but maybe the laws should change to require rehabilitation and detoxification for non-violent first time offenders. And perhaps those offenders who leave those programs can then get job training and have their criminal records scrubbed.

The impact of white flight is also large. The declining tax base, which of course affects educational funding, leads to horrible public schools. Without a decent educational system the key skills needed to leave these horrible neighborhoods never materialize. Indeed Iesha loses interest in public school early on in the book, which leads her to multiple pregnancies and a life of laziness.

At the same time, though, part of me reacts with the "personal responsibility" angle. Ultimately, if Iesha can't take care of her children, the system should take them away once and for all. They should not be punished for the sins of their mothers. But then again, as we know all too well, people don't want to fund social workers adequately. Also, for those who can't raise their children properly, something has to give at some point.

Overall this book opened many eyes for me. But unfortunately the public doesn't want to throw money down what it perceives to be the "drain". As someone who does pay taxes I see myself paying a lot and not getting much back. I can identify with that perspective, but also I realize that these people need help; and society can't turn its back on them.

All in all this is an interesting book to read.

There's nothing illiberal about acknowledging that oftentimes, the behaviors of the poor contibute to their poverty. Just don't be fooled by the rights bleating about personal responsibility.

Though there is an element of personal responsibility here, the right's constant focus on it is an attempt to "frame the debate". Their goal is not so much to make you think about "personal responsibility" as it is to keep you from thinking about the other forms of responsibility,like civic responsibility and governmental responsibility.

But I think a lot of the problems would be solved if people could steer clear of drugs and alcohol.

Nader is right, legalize all drugs

I think that non-violent offers should get a chance at rehabilitation and detoxification first. But please don't turn this into a pro-Nader thread as that is not the topic at hand.

particularly alcohol, and they're great examples of what I'm talking about. The RNC would have you thinking 24/7 about the poor's "personal responsibility" for drug and alcohol abuse sp that they can ignore governmental responsibility (it's foriegn policy wrt drug-rpducing nations like Afghanistan, where poppy production has almost doubled) and corporate responsibility (for encouraging alcohol abuse by promoting it heavil in poor areas)

And if no one will give him a job, should he be sent to starve in the gutter?

What might he do in that case? Lie down and die, or kill someone for a wallet?

Maybe you should consider the consequences of your self-righteousness.

and except for the grace (or luck) go I

in the late sixties and early seventies. Both were white. Both had children. Both were abandoned by their husbands. They got money for rent, food stamps and medical help. Both were somewhat unemployable because they had married young, didn't graduate from high school and had no skills. Even if they could have held down a job, they wouldn't have made enough to pay for baby sitters.

So, the Ronald Reagan welfare queen label is a cheap shot at a very helpless underclass of women of any race. The real issue here is if we should help children have a chance at a decent life regardless of how we view their parents. I say yes.

I do think there should be a time limit to welfare. I do think we should help these women and children but we need to also make sure that they realize that the help is not going to be endless either.

until women are released from the slavery of religion and tradition, you will always have welfare as a necessity to help the female underclasses. You still can't keep the children starving because mom can't feed them.

Of course Carlos, we are even beyond this now. Men don't have jobs, and they are becoming as poor as the women. Where do you go from here?

But people don't want their taxes raised. And I can understand why. So where does that leave us?

socialism. Of course we have to revise our government somewhat to truly make it a democracy by the people and for the people.

And to be honest I would not want to either. Raising taxes on the middle class is not the solution to the problem. And Americans won't go for that.

possibly in yours. To tell the truth when I was your age I never thought fascist would gain power in America. Think about it.

I really don't. I don't see how taxing everyone to death will help the poor. It will only make the middle class hate the poor.

it was a powerful force in the early part of the 20th century. Is America today too different from America 1901?



http://sp-usa.org/about/history.html

like most other minor parties have.

Right now the middle and lower class are being taxed more regressively then the higher ups in our society. Striving to tax each individual in accordance to what they earn only seems fair to me. Rejecting that, corporations are flush with cash after years of not paying taxes. I don't see how the middle class would object to the rich being hit first, with the added bonus of national heathcare and a shored up social safety net.

What the bloody hell do you think is happening now?

Here's your fat paycheck, sweetie. Everything you earned is yours.

Now pay more than you can afford for medical care.

Now shell out for educating your kids.

Your mother just had a stroke and needs long term care. Pay some more.

Your wife has MS. More chronic care.

Now you need household help. Pay some more.

But, of course, these are YOUR choices. You can leave your mother and your wife to wallow in their own filth. Or you can pay thru the nose. You can let your children run wild or shell out.

And that's just off the top of my head. Damn, the kids need braces and you need bridgework!

Wow, that check is just.....where is it?

Of course, none of these things will ever happen to you. You will never find yourself homeless because you lost your job while recuperating from a car accident that left you with a permanent limp and you couldn't pay a catastrophic medical bill.

Never happen to self-sufficent, healthy, careful you.

No, your check is all yours and the government wants to steal it.

Honey, they're letting the entire burden fall on your neck. They're letting you think you're self reliant when the truth is you are just a sucker who's bought the line that lets them off the hook.

Try this: What is a nation? What is its purpose? Is it to facilitate the profits of corporations? Or is it to ensure and provide for the safety and well-being of its citizens? All of them? Now how would one go about that?

I don't care for isms. I think of it as appropriate national purpose.

Bad events have happened to me. Very bad ones at a very early age. So I know what it is like to be on the edge.

There are all kinds of "bad events."

You are certainly likely to be an authority on your own experience, but since you hug it like a secret lover, who can really tell?

The trouble with personal horrors is that once you tell, they turn out to be so damned common.

It is your right to despise and condemn everything and everyone around you because times have been so bad.

I notice you're still alive. Vocal.

So right there we know, it could have been worse.

As the man said, it's not what we don't know that's the problem, it's what we know that ain't so. You have a lot of 'ain't so' in your knowledge base.

Socialism is not about taking everything from noble, hardworking, deserving Haves and giving it to shiftless, criminal HaveNots.

At its most basic level, it's about guaranteeing that everyone EITHER has a job that pays enough to live on OR has access to enough basic necessities of life to live in a dignified way. One or the other--either access to a living-wage job or access to what a living-wage job would buy.

It's about treating people as people, not things.

What it ends up doing is taxing people and getting little back in return. And the ones collecting the tax money profit off.

Look, on paper, it sounds wonderful. But in reality I don't see it working.

Okay, let me try this:

Which do you believe?

a) Anyone willing to work should be able to find a job that pays a living wage.

b) Anyone can find a job that pays a living wage, and if someone does not find such a job, they should suffer the consequences.

Constant repitition of something doesn't make it so.

To me socialism is a command economy and governement ownership of the means of producion.

Nope. That's state socialism, a degenerate form indistinguishable in principle from state capitalism aka fascism. With state socialism, as with state capitalism, implementation is all. FDR and the UK implemented benign forms, Hitler and Stalin, murderously psychopathic ones.

Socialism is most neatly summarised as:
1) fully-distributed power (1 person = 1 vote) and
2) fully-distributed ownership of businesses (1 person = 1 share)

...to which is usually added as a corollary that every citizen-in-good-standing has the obligation to contribute to the common wealth, and the right to tap that common wealth to maintain a dignified life.

can anyone say Public Roads, Public Education, Social Security?

You are right about one thing, we shouldn't tax the middle class (they've given enough welfare to Enron) the upper 10% should be taxed at a higher rate.

we obviously were wrong.

In fact, a lot of socialist parties support completing eliminating the income tax for people earning under $60,000-$100,000 annually.

I was going to say investing in inner cities to provide hope instead of despair which can lead to drug and alcohol dependence, but that would cost money.

Then I was going to say providing real goals for real economic independence, but then a poster pointed out even males are having a tough time receiving a living wage these days.

Then I was going to say education, but then there are people who did that and found their jobs going to India.

So I don't know. But we can't let children be homeless, hungry, or without healthcare. I do know that. I think we're going to have to change our view of successful communities.

for. That trillion dollars they must not have needed if they cannot account for it.

It is state law in Minnesota that children can be in daycare only so many hours a day. Our new Republican Governor wants poor women to work 30 hours a week and go to school to usually 20-30 hours a week. That immediately makes taking advantage of schooling to get a job to make enough to support your family impossible. That was the point.

The book you are reading is history not reality. Those who can get off of welfare do so within two years. Those that don't probably have multiple problems, mental illness, physical illness, disabled child, substance abuse, reading or math handicap. Employers do not give time off for extra doctors appointments, extra school conferences, extra anything. They also do not want to let you go to required meeting for the three different agencies that are helping you work and they require that the boss do extra paperwork documenting your time and pay at work. If you finally do get a job that pays enough to leave welfare behind you are required to notify your new boss you are leaving welfare and opinons being what they are it is a definite strke against you. If you are going to school and working and doing the required welfare meetings and doing the required meetings at school for the kids and taking care of home and food. Just exactly whe are you supposed to get the car fixed when the water pump goes out. People do not want to give people on welfare credit. It is easy now because benefits are approximately 1/2 of what they were in the late 60's if you don't count daycare in the equation. You wouldn't need daycare if Mom was taking care of the kids.

A women in Minnesota with 3 very young children who's husband is in prison so no child support got about 2000 a month in daycare costs. If she was on welfare she would get 535 dollars and 150 in food stamps to take care of her family. It may be in the best interest of that family to have the Mom at home taking care of the kids or it may be in the best interest of the family that the mother work. You cannot do one size fits all and that is what we are trying to do. Life is messy.

You used to read of a "welfare queen" about once a year somewhere in the country that meant that a million or more were not. If someone stole at work you would not expect the boss to cut everyones pay you would expect the person responsible to be punished. Why do generally thinking people even begin to buy into the lies about welfare?

Over all our society feels they need to punish the poor more than poverty is punishing them already. You look at the kids looking away when Mom pulls out the food stamps or stops the car to pick up a kitchen chair to replace a broken one off the side of the road. That is shame. Shame turns to rage and rage.... Religion used to be a place of refuge for the poor before funimentalism. Now people think they HAVE TO be able to take guns to Church.

Don't blame the poor for America's woes. They never stole anyone pension. They never let terrorists attack anything and they never let your boss get away with whatever he does to make you angry. Get angry at what is making your life bad and then do something about it. That welfare mother has nothing to do with it.

And I live in a liberal/Democratic area. One thing that angers me is a lot takes place at the Supermarket. I've seen welfare mothers have their purchases scrutinized by other shoppers in line. And that angers me.

I do agree with you about the welfare mother. The "single black on welfare" has to go through a lot. Every day, on TV, and in society, she sees people blaming her for everything that's wrong with this wrong with this country. Even though she may be doing her best, under the circumstances that have happened to her, she gets ridiculed in society. She can't get a break.

I fully understand what you mean there.

receive less than 5 years of welfare over the course of their entire lifetime. Many of the rest are unemployable (ie physically or mentally ill, disabled, etc)

I think the ones who are unemployable deserve our help. But those who work should work.

Then again I can understand how hard it is to employ many of these people. From the perspective of an employer I would be hard pressed to hire people with little formal education and no workplace skills.

The next question is how to convince employers to take risk and higher these indivuiduals, who normally would never be considered?

At least here we have "Welfare to work" in which welfare recipients are expected to work a certain amount of time, depending on circumstances. There is already a federally mandated time limit, although localities do try to have fallbacks for those who pass that time, simply because working does not always equal self-supporting.

if you recall, one of our won DUers ended up on welfare after an accident. i believe she had the accident on her way to start a new job. there are also (or were) transitional programs to move people who don't have skills from welfare to work.
the subtle inference that people are on welfare because they don't want to work is not exactly truth...especially in tough economic times.

that belief seems to be a theme used by those who want some folks to resent other folks, vs. looking at some larger issues.

another "divide and conquer" tactic that has worked very well with welfare in "coloring" the issue as a problem related to certain groups. coincidentally, there is a concurrent cultrual myth about the "laziness" of certain groups...one used to justify all manner of things...from "bengin neglect"....to "ending welfare as we know it."

Another tactic in the unending class warfare to ensure the "haves" keep it all.

Do you have a link?

sounds good, but there are too many things that conspire against a woman trying to dig her way out of extreme poverty. Often there are mental health issues, which we in no way are trying to solve. Drug and alcohol. Most women in poverty are fairly unemployable because they have no education or training. If they do get a job the money is crap. There's no housing they can afford on minimum wage, or even considerably better than minimum wage. Low income housing is usually few and far between. There is the issue of child care. Many don't have reliable family support, because frankly, if they did they wouldn't be in the fix they are.

I could favor a comprehensive program with a time limit, but what we've got now is just a piecemeal jumble of largely half-assed programs. A time limit is fairly useless.

Many jobs are in the suburbs and many (but by no means all) are in the cities with no way to get to those jobs other than (maybe) a inefficient public transportation system. At least in most cities, the buses do not run to the suburbs so how are these people even supposed to get to their jobs. I once was without a vehicle so I decided to take the bus to work. It took over 2 hours to get to my work, which normally took maybe 15 minutes by car. Okay, so maybe they could move closer if housing weren't so expensive in the burbs (at least for someone making 7-8 an hour.

Descended from the Mayflower they were. Put themselves thru school on welfare because their parents didn't like their marriages. One had a brown child and the other wouldn't suck up.

Welfare DAR.

in different ways. Many educational programs have been cut for women on welfare. With no job training and education what are they supposed to do? What is the incentive to get off welfare, knowing that you won't be able to afford medical care for your small children? Or daycare for that matter.

Carlos - we say we value children in our society - but does the way we act reflect that alleged value? Not hardly. Right now 39% of the people in homeless shelters are children. If we valued children, we'd have to value their mothers - and we don't value women in our society either.

I was on welfare for a few years. I found out the pill was only 99% effective when I was 18. Our parents "made" us marry. At 19 I was a single parent. I was a high school drop out - with addiction issues. Not a good employment candidate.

Know how I got off welfare? I married off. I married a guy who wanted to take care of me. I didn't love him, though he was crazy about me. I drank and drugged my way through the 2.5 years we were together, and drove him insane with my disappearing for days at a time. But, heck, I got off welfare. :eyes:

I never went back on. Somehow I managed to get by through the next awful years. I got sober eventually, and really turned my life around.

It sucked. Welfare sucked. There was never enough money to get by unless you cheated. My life was full of shitty choices. That's the way it is for people in dire poverty. We have to fight the war on poverty before we can expect to see meaningful change.

So how did you finally turn your life around?

I got sober - with the help of AA. I was able to fix my relationship with my daughter - over a period of years. I got progressively better jobs. I went to college. I worked hard - worked as many as five jobs at a time. Opportunities presented themselves at different times. I was able to take some risks. I stayed sober. I did the right things. Life improved. In sobriety I've become a published writer, and a political candidate. I work with drunk drivers, and I'm a community organizer for a progressive nonprofit. I never could have imagined this when I felt so helpless collecting welfare.

I'll never be wealthy - I may never finish college. I have no retirement - I'll have to live under a bridge when I'm old.

BUT - I've been so blessed and so fortunate. I got door #2 in sobriety, a whole new life.

No one, who has tried as hard as you to make your life make sense, should ever have to live under a bridge. That is why we must make sure these horrid people in our government, who are trying to steal our lives and our money through taxes, should be neutralized and voted out of positions of authority. Also you deserve a retirement. We all do.

Self-medicating, either through illegal narcotics or prescribed narcotics, is a decidedly American pasttime. Men & women in innercities or poor neighborhoods don't hold an exclusive on the phenomenon. Try not to use language that implies as much.

The only difference between the two groups is that those who have the "luxury" of abusing prescribed narcotics have more access to rehabilitation facilities, while illegal narcotics abusers have more access to the criminal justice system.

Here's some information, to refute the self-serving and pernicious attempts at sympathizing with the pitiable "single Black" mother on welfare, while uttering snide advisos about her tendency towards (read: greater potential) drug abuse:

...stereotypes of users and dealers (poor, black or Latino, and urban-dwelling) are not only racist, but also wrong.

According to the National Institutes on Drug Abuse, the Centers for Disease Control, and the Department of Health and Human Services, whites are equally or more likely to use drugs than their African American counterparts, despite common misperceptions to the contrary.

According to the Justice Department, drug users tend to buy from same-race dealers. So the nearly three-quarters of users who are white, mainly rely on white dope peddlers, not the Jamaicans or Dominicans of popular imagery. And when it comes to drugs like Ecstasy – a hot product for the Virginia cartel – the dealers and users have long been known to be mostly white, middle class males between 14 and 32. ... .::Article Link::.

One last note: Not only the example, but even the phrase "welfare queen" is a myth created by Reagan. Everyone should try to remember that a reporter tried to track down the woman (the welfare queen) Reagan relayed stories about ad nauseum during his campaign, and couldn't find her because she didn't exist.

She lived in Glendale, California. She was the "welfare queen" that did exist at some point in time.

But I agree with you that race is not the predictor of drug abuse. As someone who went to a snobby liberal arts college I know fully well that white people use drugs. And they go into the "scary" neighborhoods to do their purchases.

Glendale has only recently allowed people of non-European ancestry to actually hang around after dark and even to dare live there. So your Dorothy Wood, whom I am not familiar with I have to admit, was no doubt white and passing as respectable (or non-welfare)as the Glendale people would say.

Nightline did a story about her. Maybe I am mistaken, but that's what I heard on that show.

I could be wrong, but there was the famous case of a woman who was a "Welfare Queen".

There was a major case. Nightline did a show on it. I swear it was in Glendale where it happened.

Well, I am not going to argue that point with you, since I don't know the details. Unfortunately, there are always the cheats that give fodder to the conservatives to end an program that is badly needed by many.

The "idea" of the "welfare queen" is a distortion. I am not disagreeing with you.

With any program there are going to be people who defraud the system.

What you forgot about Dorothy Woods' story (and what makes the scenario, as painted by Raygun, wholly untrue) is that she already lived in that mansion long before she was on welfare. Her husband bought her that house when they moved from Chicago to California. He bought her those cars, he bought her those mink coats and he paid staff to take care of the mansion.

Her total take was less than the fat cats at the DLC are accused of illegally obtaining (by the IRS) in Wisconsin, and she served eight years in prison for the crime. How many years does anyone think the DLC creeps will get? *eyesrolling*

Let's get down to the nitty and the gritty for a moment. Most welfare fraud occurs not by the recipients, but by the administrators of the program.

Example:

In 1976 Wisconsin welfare cost $548 million for 299,700 people. By 1999, under W2 (the welfare reform program co-created by no one other than Charles "Bell Curve" Murray himself), Wisconsin welfare cost $589 million for less than 35,000 individuals! (Check the Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau). Most of the money ends up in the pockets of administrators and professionals, not mothers and children. Plus each year the private welfare agencies in Milwaukee keep $33 million in profits (unrestricted funds) and $47.2 million in surplus dollars. And, to add insult to injury, the state welfare department (DWD) kept another $46 million. (Again check the Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau)

The long and short of it is, 1) there was no welfare queen that fits the description of a woman getting rich off of welfare fraud, and 2) if you are concerned about welfare fraud, concentrate on the bureaucrats tasked with administrating the funds.

And of coruse fraud is easy to find within the bureaucracy.

that raygun's administration was one of the most corrupt in modern history. the DLC comparion is telling about how power uses poverty to keep the people's focus away from them. it works for the DLC, champions of welfare reform (so, this discussion should include some mention of them) and it works for people like Ken Lay. just like willie horton, the dorothy woods was a convienent and powerful symbol.

This story and another handful are used by conservatives as a justification for dismantling welfare. My father's favorite involved a family, I believe in St. Louis, who had found an illegal way to exploit the system. They recieved FAR more benefits than those to which they were entitled. They also got punished severely. Such arguments based on "welfare queens" fail-random examples of welfare fraud do not the system invalidate. If we dismantled every part of the government which has been illegally exploited, there WOULDNT BE ANY GOVERNMENT!

I wish there wasn't welfare. There I said it. I wish that we had an equitable society in which everyone cherished everyone else enough to spread the wealth around. It would be lovely to have a country where everyone could put food on the table, provide a home, a good education and health care for their families. That aint the way it is, Carlos, and someone has to look out for the people that fall through the cracks when the private sector fails to.

Many of our worst most ridiculous school districts spend the most money per student, yet produce no results.

Washington DC is a good example. They spend more than twice the amount of my local school district per student yet I just read somewhere that what was it over 60 % of the kids couldn't pass a basic literacy test.

And this has been going on for years, and the budget goes up every year, and the whole situation is a disgrace. Of course the politicians in Washington wouldn't let their kids near those schools.

It would involve dealing with administrators who are incompetent. But many of them are in unions and thus getting rid of them is very hard.

NOTE: I am not anti-union in the least. So please don't interpret that comment as being anti-union because I am not!

Getting rid of "incompetent" bureaucrats is all but impossible in many cases. The protection they get is necessary; but, on the downside, there are often many people working who should be fired. But then again, even in the private sector, that exists, so why bother?

I've worked on many contracts for my teacher's union. You would be amazed at how easy we have made it to get rid of poor teachers. The last thing in the world we want is a teacher who cannot teach and does not relate to children or parents. You would also be as disgusted as I am that the principals who evaluate and determine competency do not do their jobs. I am then stuck with defending an incompetent person in contract disputes.

edit: put all that in the past tense. I'm now retired and I shouldn't even be getting riled up over it any more.

I mean, I've always heard that incompetent teachers are almost impossible to fire. Explain how it really works.

And there was never a year that I did not have 1-2 totally incompetent teachers in my department (history - 6-7 teachers). Everyone knew they were incompetent.

One lady taught english, but she didn't know how to teach and her kids screwed up the standardized test results for the school. So they transferred her to history where there was no standardized test to ruin. So then she was a teacher who couldn't teach and didn't know her subject either. She's still there today and as bad as ever.

And this is not a union district.

So parents - if you hear or suspect a teacher is dreadful - don't assume there wouldn't be a dreadful teacher teaching there. Get your kid out of that class.

Personally, my kid's in private school.

In the first year that a teacher is hired, it is the administators duty to address that teacher's weaknesses and offer suggestions for improvement. If those suggestions are not followed by the new teacher, it is the principal's right to non-renew that teacher with no questions asked. If the suggestions are followed and the new teacher makes improvements then a second one year contract is usually, and should be, awarded.

The same procedure occurs the second and third years. The teacher should make improvement or be terminated. That new teacher has no real rights if the administrator deems his performance unacceptable.

By this time, if the administrator has been doing his job, poor teachers should be weeded out. It gets much harder to fire a teacher at that time; and it gets more difficult with every passing year.

The problem is that many administrators do not do the right thing in the beginning. The union is then stuck defending a poor teacher in order to maintain the rights of the qualified ones.

If contract after contract is awarded without the problems being addressed, it is not the fault of the teacher's union. The blame lies in the administration.

By the way, the evaluation form I'm talking about is a blank piece of paper. I don't know how much easier we could make it.

I think that unions are necessary in low wage industries and am against right to work laws. At the same time I will say that some of these protections enable workers who should be fire to remain. However, the benefit of protecting the good and decent employees takes precedence over that argument in my opinion.

the title escapes me.

It discussed how issues of race have become tied into the symbolism and people's understanding on welfare.

The social scientist did polling and found that in large part people agree with the social welfare system that has been put in place and (if anything) would like programs expanded to include health care, etc. He argued that our society (and the right-wing) have turned the issue of welfare into a metaphor for race in this country.

I wish I could remember the title of the stupid book!!! :(

A must read for thinking liberals...

When the dollars are being stolen from you. The biggest tax eaters in the budget are SS, Medicare, Defense, and interest on the national debt.

The forms of welfare for the poor make up less than 1% of the budget.

Granted, SS and Medicare costs will increase as the population ages, but there is still enough waste, fraud and abuse in SS and medicare to cover the welfare budget and more. And most of the ones doing the stealing in these programs are the doctors and hospitals who gouge the system.

Most of the increase in Defense has not gone toward Homeland Security, (sounds positively Soviet, doesn't it?) but to fancy new weaponry that the Pentagon says it doesn't need, at the same time as military pay and benefits dwindles.

I don't even need to go into interest on the debt, because with GW, soon it will dwarf the defense budget.

So what, some of the poor are druggies and bums. We've always had those types and we most likely always will. At least we tried to help and that is our "personal responsibility".

I worked in this area for 20 yrs in Tennesse and Florida. I was a caseworker for people getting AFDC, Food Stamps, and Medicaid. In the last 5 yrs I worked exclusively with ICP--this is medicaid for nursing home patients--which is welfare although many don't think of it as such. I spent 3+ of those 20 yrs as a Welfare Fraud Investigator.
First the majority of the "fraud" was very petty--mothers getting a job at MCDonalds at Thanksgiving or Christmas in order to earn money to buy their kids things at Christmas, etc. I saw only one or two of what one would call a major attempt at fraud--none of which ever amounted to any overcharge greater than $20000. Believe it or not it is hard to wrack up a big fraud in these programs as there are too many checks on the cases.
Second--now you will say "why didn't these women keep these jobs at McDonalds' etc?" I'll tell you why--no help with daycare costs and loss of medicaid benefits. Any long term employment at these places paying minimum wage invariably results in a "lower standard" of living due to loss/decrease of food stamps/welfare and most important medicaid. The small minimum wage salaries will not cover needed items for a family. Also many of these types of companies will not even employee a person for a full 40 hr work week just to avoid having to offer any type of benefit.

Third-- Are there "bad" people on welfare. Yes indeed, just as there a many good people. These folks are human. The vast majority are women. Most are doing the best they can with the deal they got in life. Are there long term systemic problems with the welfare system? Yes. Over a long term all welfare does is maintain a very poor living for a person. Without effective training, medical, psychological programs to help these people overcome their many problems nothing will change. Many of these women do have serious problems which drugs are used to treat--childhood abuse, sexual molestation, etc. Their poverty justs exacerbates the problems and makes success in life highly improbable.

Next--look at the overall economic system of the country (addressed minimally in #2 above) During the 70's,80's welfare rolls started to grow. Why? One major reason was simply the lack of good paying jobs. During this time the economic rulers of this country - the Federal Reseve, etc.- were saying things like we as a nation would never be able to have 100% employment for everyone who wanted a job. It was thought that a 4-6% unemployment rate would be required to control inflation. In addition during this time a lot of jobs just left the country, or moved from north to the south--putting people in northern cities out of work. Remember all the buyout and consolidation of companies that went on during the Reagan years. Many companies were bought buy corporate raiders, stripped of their assets and then closed putting people out of work. Don't you remember instances in the news of a fast food joint or some other small company opening a store in an inner city and hundreds of people would line up to fill out an application? This happened many times in the 70's and 80's. In addition the minimum wage never increased during this entire period (until Clinton came in) so because of inflation what was earned bought less and less.

Welfare reform "worked" in the 90's because of the growth in good paying jobs in this country. People who had wanted to work could during this time get a fairly decent job. The welfare reform did also allow them to keep medicaid for a longer period and in some states gave real help with daycare costs. But the drastic reduction in rolls came only because of the jobs boom.

When one really looks at the "big" picture welfare has served the nation well during this period as it kept people who couldn't find jobs from starving and maybe rioting in the streets. (Welfare culture is very complicated--it may be that the women were the ones getting the checks but the men were still there in the background and subsisting with the women.) If the official policy of the nation is that there will always be a certain amount of needed unemployment to contain inflation, etc. then it must be realized that some people will simply not be able to work. What then do we do with them? Let them starve? Let them riot in the streets? Or do we give them a very small amount of money to subsist on?

I could go on and on with this. I lived it for 20 + yrs. Sometimes I hated my clients and sometimes I envied them as they seemed to be doing better than I was. (I got over that as I know I was doing better than they)

Now it looks as though jobs are again disappearing--overseas and maybe forever. Minimum wage will not increase with the Repubs controlling Congress and the White House. What are we going to do with all the people losing jobs? Unemployment is time limited and doesn't even cover many types of jobs. What will we do for all these folks who will not have any money coming in? Welfare reform put "time limits" on benefits. What will we do with all the unemployed moms who don't have any "time" left or only a few months?
Are we as a nation going to allow massive unemployment with starvation and homelessness as the inevitable side effects?

Serious questions.

At a conference I attended a woman said that in FL, if you want to get Foodstamps, you can't have a car. And given how Florida has little public transit it is a MAJOR problem.

as all kinds of little nonsense quirks like this to make pulling oneself up by ones bootstraps well-nigh impossible. In PA you can only get subsidized day care if you have a job. How do you get the job if you don't have anyone to watch the kids? I work in child welfare and recently I had to place three children because their mother is a homeless crack addict. She subsequently lost her Medicaid and food stamps. Now how is she supposed to get her life together without Medicaid and food stamps? It just makes her situation WORSE.

That does make her life worse. The hardest things are the reverse incentives and the catch-22 requirements.

Yes I am in Florida and yes the car is a problem with food stamps. you can have a car just not a very new or expensive car. I have been out of that program for several years now so my figures will not be exact but if you apply for food stamps and have a motor vehicle (car or truck, motorcycle) you are allowed about a $4500 deduction from the blue book value of the car. then that amount is applied to the food stamp asset limit of about $2000(?) (Remember i've been out of program for a while). If the asset value of the vehicle plus other assets adds up to more than the asset limit you can't get food stamps. This was done to keep people with big fancy cars out of the program-- the people demanded it--didn't want folks with big fancy cars getting food stamps.

However, if you are applying for another program such as medicaid or welfare you might qualify even with the auto if you can "exempt" for a reason. One good reason is medical. If a person is temporarily or permanently disabled or has to drive a disabled family member to the doctor/therapy etc. then you can ask to have the vehicle exempted for handicap transportation (a doctor's statement will suffice).
As a rule though, if you just got laid off and have a relatively new, expensive vehicle you will not qualify for foodstamps.

People in florida should go to www.myflorida.com for additional information. Rat ass Jeb set up this website but it is a good site. You can search and find out about food stamp eligibility and even print out the application on line. The main thing is to look for an exemption for any asset that puts you over the allowable limit. For most folks that's going to be the auto/truck.
(As you can see it can get quite complicated to navigate the system.)

Let's say you are a woman whose husband leaves you with the three kids. And let's say he made good money, but then leaves you. He gave you a nice car that is relatively new (3-5 years old) and its blue book value is decent; but, when you go to work, you need the car. But your wages aren't enough to pay the bills, so you go looking for foodstamps.

So is this woman out of luck?

I needed ammunition on the Tennessean forum where the right wing flakes consistently claim that welfare abuse is rampant. Of course they never provide any evidence, charts, or statistics. They "just know" it!

of showing that the welfare "abuse is rampant" argument is crap is letting people know how much recipients actually get. It's not enough to live on. Skimming a few extra dollars off of welfare is not gonna allow one to be out on the streets in a BMW. If some welfare recipient is living large, it's NOT due to rampant welfare fraud. Unless they have a real scam going, which I have yet to see.

In Nashville, Tn. DHS published at that time and probably still does a quarterly(?) magazine. That should have all the stats in it. DHS also has a web site but its not too good and don't know that those stats would be on it. However, this information should be public record. There are 3 types of overpayment claims (as they are called) First is agency error--this means the agency made a booboo such as not making a change the client reported or doing it too late. This is not considered fraud but the person is forced to repay if still on food stamps by a reduction in benefits. The second error is called Inadverdent Household Error--this means a mistake was made by the person getting the stamps but it wasn't intentional fraud. Usually this involves someone who moved to a cheaper place and didn't report the reduced rent or they went to work and did call the agency to report but not within 10 days of getting the job as required. Usually these claims involve incidents that occurred in under a 3 month or less span, are a fairly low dollar amount and are corrected rather quickly. It's been awhile but I believe the agency also collects on these whether or not the client wants to repay by reducing the food stamp benefit. The last and most serious overpayment is Intentional Program Violation. These are the "big dollar" claims and involve someone working and not reporting or someone moving into or out of the household that affects the amount of food stamps you can get. These cases can be criminally prosecuted if the dollar amount is high enough. The individual fraud units in cooperation with the local District Attorneys determine which of these cases will be criminally prosecuted. The regular statute of limitations applies to these cases for criminal prosecution. If either the statute expires or for another reason they go to an agency adminstrative hearing. In that case there will be no "criminal" prosecution.

If you do get stats remember that the agency wants to make itself look good so all types of errors will be reported along with the collection amounts.

I will still stand by my statement that most of the fraud is penny-ante especially considered with the likes of what corporations and white collars get away with. There are so many checks on these people --income,birth, ssa, dept. employment security,motor vehicle, etc. that unless you go out of your way to forge a social security number and false identity it is hard to work for any length of time and not get caught. You can work under the table and that is hard to prove. But not many did it back then. You would be surprised--family and "friends" will rat on you to the agency. Another big fraud area is having someone in the home with you working and not reporting that person is there. Of course there are outs for that if the circumstances are correctly investigated.

My own personal opinion was that most welfare fraud cases could have been beaten in court if the people could have afforded to hire a good lawyer. Case workers are overloaded and miss a lot of information they get that would stop any overpayment before it got out of hand. Any one (like me) who knew how to read a case and what to look for could have stopped most criminal prosecutions and turned the overpayment into agency error.

Hope this helps and good luck. Did you see my other response in this thread referencing Michael Moore's "Roger and Me".

On edit: I refer to food stamps in the statement above but the rules are basically the same for welfare and medicaid programs as well. These cases are almost always joint--welfare/food stamp overpayments and repayments are sought for all the programs in the same way.

Along with the other super CEOs!

If you haven't already, I suggest you watch Michael Moores first documentary "Roger and Me" which shows the devastation of a community when a major employer/industry leave the area. He did another documentary as well on this subject a few years later. It may be "Pets or Meat-- A return to Flint" Both documentaries show the effects of job loss on on community and people.

Remember welfare programs were developed for a reason. They started in the 30's because of the Great Depression--the effort was to keep mom's from having to put children in orpanages/foster homes because of job loss. During this time many were widowed or husband deserted the family because he didn't have work etc.

Welfare is inevitably tied to the nation's economic system. It doesn't exist on its own. Welfare as it has existed has needed to be improved. However, the right wing attacks beginning in the 70's by Reagan weren't so much about reform but more about doing away with the system altogether. It is part of the concerted effort to do away with any govt. program that might help the less fortunate and includes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and now attacks on the WIC program (Nutrition for poor or low income pregnant women and toddlers), food stamps (block granting). In reference to food stamps this program started under Nixon and had two purposes: Feed the poor hungry and give farmers a boost in income by assuring access to food by more people. This program has never been fully utilized by those eligible and has gotten harder over the years to access. Congress is now thinking about block granting it to the states which means an inevitable loss of services to the hungry. Already, the number of hungry in the nation is growing and more and more families and working poor must rely on food banks for help in meeting nutritional needs. I refer you to 2nd Harvest Food Bank--they have a web site- for more information.

Finally I point out to you that the welfare queen was a myth. A greater myth promoted by the right wing in our nation is the belief that unfettered, unregulated capitalism along with an individual's own hard work will inevitably lead to financial success. (Hidden message you too can be a millionaire.) This is truly a myth. Millions of Americans work very hard every day at jobs that pay very little. They will never be rich. When jobs start disappearing, when the minimum wage never increases, when there is no protection for the little guy he stands no chance to "get rich" much less sustain a decent living. It is a great big LIE. We can not all be millionaires. We need to honor the work all people do from cleaning sewers, hauling garbage, etc. It is work that has got to done unless we all want to live in filth.
I don't know. Maybe we as a nation should just go back to the 15th and 16th century lifestyle. That seems to be where we are heading anyway.
It makes me very sad and I want to cry.

and he is now an actor(i suspect it was sarandan or robbins wing) and made a hit movie (altho the title slips my mind) ...after his success in film industry he wanted to build his mom a beautiful house near him but she refused and instead stays in Philly helping the homeless and living in a very modest apt.where she always did near the "tent city." she has many living with her....i saw her son on the talk show curcit a few years ago and was so happy for him.

was a great read...i had the book club i belong to read it...that was a lively discussion :7

Although I find what she is doing to be admirable, at the same time, I wonder if she isn't in it for herself too. I mean, her work with KRWU is noble; but at the same time, she doesn't tell her followers how to make sure that they can get housing vouchers.

I have mixed feelings on her.

She seems to be doing exactly what people think welfare recipients should, by working towards self-sufficiency. Not to mention that there are some serious systematic problems that require attention and protest. On one hand, there is an increasing need for social services and financial assistance. On the other, anyone who needs it is a scapegoat for corporate welfare and large-scale fraud - a la Enron, Halliburton, etc. People need health care, food, and shelter and the lack of employer responsibility towards the people who make their money literally forces people to stay on welfare.

I think you are completely wrong about Cheri. She actually does help people find resources.

http://abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/000824_homelessactor_chat.html

I mean, it may change by the time I reach the end. But all Cheri seems to do from my intial reading is scream and demonstrate, which does call attention to her cause. What is of concern to me is the effectiveness of her protests.

Have you tried applying? Ha! Good luck!

Carlos "the sins of their mothers" ?!!!

Are you trying to disgust the hell out of me?

Edited typo

I've seen the paperwork involved in applying for welfare. It is a pain.

Right wingers whine and cry about welfare cheats, but support handouts to big corporations. There is no logic to it.

The $150 Billion `Welfare' Recipients: U.S. Corporations
http://www.corporations.org/welfare/globe2.html

Corporate Income Tax Study from 1996-1998
See which companies paid no taxes and which ones received rebates.

Corporate Welfare Information Center
"The $150 billion for corporate subsidies and tax benefits eclipses the annual budget deficit of $130 billion. It's more than the $145 billion paid out annually for the core programs of the social welfare state: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), student aid, housing, food and nutrition, and all direct public assistance (excluding Social Security and medical care)."

"After World War II, the nation's tax bill was roughly split between corporations and individuals. But after years of changes in the federal tax code and international economy, the corporate share of taxes has declined to a fourth the amount individuals pay, according to the US Office of Management and Budget." --Boston Globe series on Corporate Welfare
http://www.corporations.org/welfare/

Facts on Corporate Welfare
Average taxpayers pick up an expensive tab for corporate welfare expenditures. Government spending for corporate welfare programs far exceeds government spending for social programs.

Fact: Spending for corporate welfare programs outweighs spending for low-income programs by more than three to one: $167 billion to $51.7 billion (source: Aid for Dependent Corporations, from the Corporate Welfare Project and How Much Do We Spend on Welfare?, from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, FY 95 figures)

Fact: Total federal spending on a safety net for the poor costs the average taxpayer about $400 a year, while spending on corporate welfare programs costs the same taxpayer about $1400 a year. (source: CBO figures)
Corporate welfare programs are protected at the expense of the poor and powerless. In the last Congress, spending for the needy absorbed the majority of spending cuts, while corporate welfare spending was barely touched.

Fact: Over 90% of the budget cuts passed by the last Congress cut spending for the poor -- programs that ensure food for the needy, housing for the homeless, job training for the unemployed, community health care for the sick. (source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Bearing Most of the Burden, 1996).

Fact: Only 3.9% of total federal outlays go to programs that solely benefit poor people.

Welfare programs for corporations do not play by the same rules as welfare for people. Welfare benefits for individuals and families are limited by strict eligibility requirements and time limits, while corporations get corporate welfare benefits regardless of wealth or accountability.

Fact: Individuals and families must demonstrate need to receive benefits, while corporations with billions of dollars in annual income remain on the federal dole.

Fact: Most social spending is in the form of discretionary spending, which is scrutinized in the annual budget negotiating process in Congress; most corporate welfare programs are in the form of tax expenditures, which go on and on since they are not subject to annual review by Congress.
http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/428/1/87/

Giveaways to the Rich and Corporations
http://www.ctj.org/html/publist.htm#corporate

How Billions in Taxes Failed to Create Jobs
The Government is Propping up American Corporations by Subsidizing Their Research and Development.
The Promise Is High-Paying Jobs. The Payoff So Far Is Pork, Politics and Giveaways to Big Business.
http://www.corporations.org/welfare/inquirer.html

Layoff Leaders Cushioned from Downturn . . .
http://ufenet.org/press/2001/exec_excess_2001_pr.html

Corporate Welfare
http://www.citizen.org/congress/welfare/index.cfm

Tax Subsidies Reward Job Cutters
http://www.ctj.org/html/layoffs.htm

There is too much of that.

at research, as far as posts of yours I've read where you supply links and info relevant to your position. Granted I have not always agreed with them, but you tend to be pretty solid in your debate.

Here is my question;

There are states that send more money TO Washington than get money back FROM Washington. California is one. I think they send in a $1.30 for each $1.00 they get back. IIRC, Montana is the reverse, they send in UNDER a $1.00 for each $1.00 of Fed money returned. I would be interested to find out the distribution of these "Welfare" states. My hypothesis is that the Red states would show up more frequently as "Welfare" states and Blue states as the "Benefactor" states.

My end game would be to have something to counteract the "liberals wanna take my money and give to poor folk" bs, and show that bush*country is actually sucking us dry. The "true" welfare queens are not black and in inner city urban areas driving cadillacs, they are white and in outer suburban or rural areas driving pick-ups and suv's!

Most people receiving wellfare neither want to do so nor can they do anything about it.

However: In Germany (okay, we have a wellfare/healthcare system far more generous) there is a public outrage because of two cases:
-one had sued to get Viagra paid by social security and won.
-one is getting his seaside-home in Florida payed by social security because "he can't stand living in Germany " and his psychiatrist backed it up. (this case wouldn't be possible any more, but his request got approved in the 80s - so he is in the sunshine state having a good time).

Those are isolated cases, yet they're preparing the ground for the end of the current social systems.