Reset Password
If you've forgotten your password, you can enter your email address below. An email will then be sent with a link to set up a new password.
Cancel
Reset Link Sent
If the email is registered with our site, you will receive an email with instructions to reset your password. Password reset link sent to:
Check your email and enter the confirmation code:
Don't see the email?
  • Resend Confirmation Link
  • Start Over
Close
If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service
Forgot password?
Blogs > tickles4us > tickles

Here's a story that should turn your stomach...  

tickles4us 62M
1602 posts
11/27/2016 10:36 am

Last Read:
9/29/2020 5:11 pm
Here's a story that should turn your stomach...

I heard this story on the radio and it disgusted me I think you ought to take a look at the transcript if you haven't heard the show on NPR.

So they called this welfare reform?

revealnews.org/episodes/a-welfare-check/

Well what did you think?

If you didn't read the story keep your comments to yourself?

Here is some more interesting material.

marketplace.org/2016/08/17/world/legacy-welfare-reform-20-years-later

marketplace.org/topics/uncertain-hour

marketplace.org/yourstateonwelfare/
Vive La Difference
wickedeasy 74F
32404 posts
11/28/2016 12:31 pm

 the SNAP program allows a woman who ahs given birth 6 months before needing to seek work, volunteer or seek further education in order to remain on the program.....at least here in MA. we also have WIC which provides dairy and basic staples to any family with kids that needs extra help and lots do, even with both parents working.
You cannot conceive the many without the one.


tickles4us replies on 11/28/2016 6:19 pm:
It seems the states have been a bit loose about where the money has been going. I have to wonder how many people have been left out in the cold because of the maximum life time benefit limitation of five years. This last recession was longer than that.

maggeemay 56F
320 posts
11/28/2016 3:52 am

 Regardless of the circumstances, in this country people going hungry is unacceptable, and unthinkable for children.


tickles4us replies on 11/28/2016 9:02 am:
It is, and the system needs a better overhaul but I don't like the idea of the Republicans doing it or being the ones holding the power over how it is done.

sweet_VM 65F
81699 posts
11/27/2016 3:46 pm

 Same thing happening in Canada too hugs V
Become a blog watcher sweet_vm


tickles4us replies on 11/27/2016 9:29 pm:
Government abuses are pretty much universal I guess that isn't surprising given it's people that are in government.

BrownEyedBBW 55F  
8831 posts
11/27/2016 12:49 pm

 Back in the mid 90s my company participated in the welfare to work programs of the Clinton administration and later I worked for a state agency that dealt with child support and public assistance.

Clinton made a big mistake, one of the same ones Johnson's administration did in the 1960s and there is a sketchy method to the madness.

First, in the haste to get the government in the business of helping the poor, they set up a system that did little to motivate people to move off of welfare. There was no job training built in, an increase with each child, fathers were not held responsible and, most critically, there was no provision for safe, dependable childcare for parents undergoing job training or going to work.

Under Clinton some of this was remedied. A total cap was placed on benefits, mothers were required to identify fathers and fathers were required to reimburse the state for assistance payments,and there was a push for job training and placement. However, the biggest problem still wasn't addressed: adequate childcare. No mother, regardless of her socio-economic status would willingly put their children in sub-standard daycare.

Fix the deplorable state of affordable childcare and you'll make great strides towards reducing the population on public assistance even further (and, for the record, it's a much smaller population than people realize).

All that being said, for most federal programs, a portion is earmarked for state use because the culture and needs of one state can be drastically different from another. Even on the federal level one of the goals is to maintain a healthy, stable co-parenting situation, it's the reason child support isn't tied to parenting time (visitation).

For example, often the period before support amounts are finalized, women and children find themselves short financially and the general profile of a family on public assistance is a separated/divorced woman with 1 or 2 children. People might be surprised how often, especially in this economy, women wearing department store clothes and driving late model cars have to ask for a little help on a temporary basis (god knows I was surprised when I saw some of the women who walked into these offices)

OK's remedy to that is to try to catch parents *before* the relationship falls apart and to give them tools to handle conflict. Do I think it's a waste of money? I don't know that I would have voted for it. However, those allocations are approved by the state legislators.

In terms of the benefits paid, those *and not* determined by the state. While it's accurate that the states get their aids in as block grants that they are tasked with distributing, the dollar amount is set on the federal level. That means no matter how frivolous some of spending might seem, TANF beneficiaries are going to get a set amount no matter where they are.

The funny thing is these draconian changes were part and parcel of the Democratic party and hasn't been revisited in the past 8 years.

SO yeah, I take these types of stories with a *huge* grain of salt.


tickles4us replies on 11/27/2016 2:16 pm:
I like what you had to say and for the most part I agree but I also know that some legislatures in states have a leaning towards certain ways of looking at things and that it leads to moneys being spent in questionable ways.

There are always other sides to the story but I have to say that when welfare is being used to pay for some of the education costs for families making upper middle class incomes then something is wrong.

When organizations to help women with having an unwanted pregnancy in opposition to an abortion are given part of the welfare budget but planned parenthood is being eliminated from the budget then something is wrong.

Yes I agree that states should have some freedom to determine how the money is spent but there needs to be more well defined definitions on what is really helpful and what is not. When only around 25 percent of the population living under the poverty line are getting the aid they need while moneys are being spent on programs that are questionable at the least then something is wrong.

I understand the idea behind time limits or maximum lifetime benefit period but tell me how that is fair when you have things like jobs being deported and economic melt downs? I expect the reason there are so many people living in poverty and not getting aid is because they have exceeded their lifetime benefit which is not surprising given the recent economic disaster.

Take that and the limits on unemployment benefits and you have a better picture of why there are so many homeless people about and people sharing their homes with family and friends that have exceeded their limits on whatever benefits.

Meanwhile we have tax breaks to the wealthy and investment income being taxed at a lower rate than work income.

tickles4us 62M
7262 posts
11/27/2016 10:37 am
Vive La Difference


Become a member to create a blog