Giving away more "no strings attached" taxpayer money

[Sweet Willy]

Dude, if you can't grasp that where you are in life is the cumulative result of the decisions that you have made throughout your life, I can't help you. People on welfare usually are poor managers of money because of the poor decisions that they have made throughout their life. Sometimes they are born into poverty and welfare helps them climb out of it. Great. However after a quick and dirty search, the recidivism rate for welfare from 1978 to 1991 is 57%. That is a majority, and clearly supports the "usually" in my statement. You feel like ponying up a more recent statistic that shows the recidivism rate from '91 till '09, be my guest.

1991? That was 18 years ago. How about we look at figures post 1996? How about a near 70% turnover rate and a 5 year lifetime benefit cut off? Just as I thought, you are working from a personal and uninformed view of welfare families.
Poverty&Welfare

I was pretty clear in my statement. But I will spell it out for you: If the gamblers are still able to provide for themselves and their family, then they are not "the poorest" money managers, which is what you asked. They are poor money managers, but not the poorest.

So, in your opinion, a man with a job making $210 a week that can't seem to pay the rent and feed the kids is a poorer money manager than a guy who makes $1000 a week, gambles away $700 but manages to live just above poverty?

I'd say you have a perspective problem, judging people by the amount of money they have , not their actual character or even any consideration for it.

[
I'll ask once more, can you prove that people on welfare are the poorest money managers? Or is that just your personal characterization of people you know nothing about exceot that they recieve welfare?

 

[Sweet Willy]

Because USUALLY they have nothing or never had anything because of the cumulative impact of the decisions that they have made in their life. If they have nothing, then those decisions were pretty damn poor.

So when does a person become responsible for their decisions?

At what point does a child born with nothing, as many are, become responsible to have something?

If you're born with nothing, get a job at McDonalds and that won't keep a roof over your head and feed you, what was the bad decision? The decision not to shit enough money to go to college? maybe that was it?

 

[RadiomanATL]

1991? That was 18 years ago. How about we look at figures post 1996? How about a near 70% turnover rate and a 5 year lifetime benefit cut off?

Well that doesn't prove anything, does it? If they have a 5 year cutoff it means that they are inelligible. It does NOT mean that they have become good managers of their money.

I was pretty clear in my statement. But I will spell it out for you: If the gamblers are still able to provide for themselves and their family, then they are not "the poorest" money managers, which is what you asked. They are poor money managers, but not the poorest.

So, in your opinion, a man with a job making $210 a week that can't seem to pay the rent and feed the kids is a poorer money manager than a guy who makes $1000 a week, gambles away $700 but manages to live just above poverty?

Well yeah, he is a poorer manager of his money, but only by about 90 bucks in your example. And what it does not mean is that the gambler is a good manager of his money. I never claimed that.

I'll ask once more, can you prove that people on welfare are the poorest money managers?

Yes. Because they are on welfare, they are usually poor managers of money. That is all the proof that is needed. I mean, I'm basically saying the equivalent of 2+2=4, and you're wanting proof that 2 is really 2.

 

[RadiomanATL]

So when does a person become responsible for their decisions?

From the time they are born pretty much. At least from the time they enter the 5th or 6th grade or so. From that point on the decisions you make on your education have a life-long impact.

At what point does a child born with nothing, as many are, become responsible to have something?

They are not responsible to "have something". They are responsible for where they are in life.

If you're born with nothing, get a job at McDonalds and that won't keep a roof over your head and feed you, what was the bad decision? The decision not to shit enough money to go to college? maybe that was it?

No, the bad decision comes in when the refusal or reluctance to do well in school and take advantage of the many, many programs and scholarships that are offered to those who do well in school. You don't have to have money to go to a school of higher learning after high-school. But if you don't want to pay for college you do have to show where you have done well in your scholastic endeavors to that point (I'm not even getting into athletic scholarships...IMO most of them poorly prepare people for life after school athletics).

 

[Sweet Willy]

1991? That was 18 years ago. How about we look at figures post 1996? How about a near 70% turnover rate and a 5 year lifetime benefit cut off?

Well that doesn't prove anything, does it? If they have a 5 year cutoff it means that they are inelligible. It does NOT mean that they have become good managers of their money.

So, in your opinion, a man with a job making $210 a week that can't seem to pay the rent and feed the kids is a poorer money manager than a guy who makes $1000 a week, gambles away $700 but manages to live just above poverty?

Well yeah, he is a poorer manager of his money, but only by about 90 bucks in your example. And what it does not mean is that the gambler is a good manager of his money. I never claimed that.

I'll ask once more, can you prove that people on welfare are the poorest money managers?

Yes. Because they are on welfare, they are usually poor managers of money. That is all the proof that is needed. I mean, I'm basically saying the equivalent of 2+2=4, and you're wanting proof that 2 is really 2.

All right man, let me drop the big enchilada on you. CHILDREN are the USUAL recipients of welfare.

Now, please, again, explain to us how being a welfare recipient = a poor financial manager.

You are working from an ill concieved stereo type.

 

[RadiomanATL]

I thought that from the context of the discussion that it was apparent that children were not the subject. But there I go again thinking that people have the ability to actually read the context of the posts.

 

[Sweet Willy]

So when does a person become responsible for their decisions?

From the time they are born pretty much. At least from the time they enter the 5th or 6th grade or so. From that point on the decisions you make on your education have a life-long impact.

At what point does a child born with nothing, as many are, become responsible to have something?

They are not responsible to "have something". They are responsible for where they are in life.

If you're born with nothing, get a job at McDonalds and that won't keep a roof over your head and feed you, what was the bad decision? The decision not to shit enough money to go to college? maybe that was it?

No, the bad decision comes in when the refusal or reluctance to do well in school and take advantage of the many, many programs and scholarships that are offered to those who do well in school. You don't have to have money to go to a school of higher learning after high-school. But if you don't want to pay for college you do have to show where you have done well in your scholastic endeavors to that point (I'm not even getting into athletic scholarships...IMO most of them poorly prepare people for life after school athletics).

This post explains a whole lot. You are completely detatched from reality. To say that we are responsible to have something to manage from birth is outrageous. To further contend that school children, born into poverty and poort environment have the equipment to be responsible and manage their education on their own is pure ignorance of the world.

 

[Sweet Willy]

I thought that from the context of the discussion that it was apparent that children were not the subject. But there I go again thinking that people have the ability to actually read the context of the posts.

UH......you said welfare recipients were usually poor managers of their finance.......were you speaking from ignorance? Did you not know that children are the USUAL recipients of welfare?

You are making an argument based on myth my man. Learn what a subject is before you go using it to characterize people you know little about.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Radio, who do you think this $200 was for? You understand that it is for the children? Right?

Is there any evidence of this money being misused or just this pile of anecdotes you presented?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Back to school spree: Billionaire, feds give out $175M to aid neediest students around the state


If they actually use it on school supplies, great. I applaud them and congratulate them on wanting a better life for their children.

However, since people on welfare usually have the poorest track record of managing their financial situation, I doubt that little more than half go to school supplies. And I'm being generous. A better way would for the government to partner with office supply stores and general stores such as WalMart and give out vouchers to these stores only. Not quite sure if this is logistically possible, but I would like to see at the very least an attempt at such a thing rather than this.

On the flip side, it is more of a direct stimulus, albeit a very very small one.

Bonus quotes in article:

"It's free money!" -- No it's not. The majority of it is taxpayer money.

"Thank God for Obama. He's looking out for us." -- You're pretty cheap if your vote is only worth $200 of someone else's money.

What ya have hear is nothing more or less than bribery... the buying of votes. It's immoral to the core and should be a capital crime...

There is nothing in the USC which provides for the government to take the money of tax payers and subsidize ANYONE... PERIOD.

Of course this bunch stands wholesale AGAINST THE US CONSTITUTION... and this is simply another demonstration of these Leftist being the "Domestic Enemy" that every US service man and woman has sworn an oathe to defend against...

It's comin' friends... just wait for them to kick it off... it shouldn't be long now.

 

[RadiomanATL]

I thought that from the context of the discussion that it was apparent that children were not the subject. But there I go again thinking that people have the ability to actually read the context of the posts.

UH......you said welfare recipients were usually poor managers of their finance.......were you speaking from ignorance? Did you not know that children are the USUAL recipients of welfare?

You are making an argument based on myth my man. Learn what a subject is before you go using it to characterize people you know little about.

Yes I did say that. But here is where context comes into play. Context that obviously went over your head. Ya know, the context where I was saying repeatedly about life choices and such. Do ya really think I was talking about a 3 year old?

Or maybe the context didn't go over your head...maybe now you're trying to quibble over a semantics issue because you realize that you've lost the argument? Hmmmmm....

Oh, and BTW just so we're on the same page and you don't resort to quibbling any more, here are the specific welfare programs under discussion:


US Welfare System - Help for US Citizens

One of the basic criteria for the SRS program is that the recipients work towards someday leaving the program. For that purpose vocational rehabilitation services will give job training and skills that will help the recipients obtain gainful employment on their own.
Basic Eligibility Requirements:

Eligibility Requirements of Welfare Programs

* A basic lack of gainful employment opportunity through either lack of places of employment or lack of job skill.
* A commitment to self-sufficiency is necessary before any potential recipient can begin to receive benefits. Heads of household must enter into an agreement they will become self-sufficient within a certain timeframe.
* A commitment to cooperation must be signed by the heads of household that they will comply with and continue all regulations and requirements while receiving aid.
* Dependant children must be living in the household. There are some very few exceptions, but generally all dependants must be within the home.
* All minors must be attending school during school days.
* All minors and dependants must be fully and appropriately immunized.
* The recipient must be 18 years of age

TANF, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or cash assistance is available to bring income into households where there is minimal or none. The purpose of the TANF program is to allow income into the homes so that children, elderly or other dependants can be cared for. The criteria for these welfare benefits are that the heads of household are working to obtain job training which will enable them to leave the welfare programs.

Another of the welfare programs is the energy or utility assistance program which is intended to help those who cannot afford to pay for basic utility needs, such as heat, electricity and/or gas and water. Like the child support program, it will supplement part of or provide 100% of the monthly utility costs.

The food stamps program will help household acquire food for the home without having to use other sources of income on groceries. Food stamps are part of a very important program which allows for those households with very limited means to be able to use those means on other necessities. Food stamps provide the nutritional needs for the family.

Obviously none of these programs apply directly to children, although children can benefit from them indirectly.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Radio, who do you think this $200 was for? You understand that it is for the children? Right?

Is there any evidence of this money being misused or just this pile of anecdotes you presented?

Yes, it was for the children. However there was zero accountability and/or tracking placed on the benefit, which leaves it wide open to abuse. Which means that there is no direct evidence that either it was abused or used properly. IOW: You can't prove either that it was used as it was meant to.

But at a certain point the pile of anecdotal evidence shows that a significant percentage did misuse the money. 1 or 2 misusing it would not make a run on electronics in a Wal-Mart. Especially at only $200 a pop.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Yes I did say that. But here is where context comes into play. Context that obviously went over your head. Ya know, the context where I was saying repeatedly about life choices and such. Do ya really think I was talking about a 3 year old?

So when does a person become responsible for their decisions?

From the time they are born pretty much.

Maybe I do have a comprehension problem. Explain to me how old you believe a person to be at birth.

 

[Dr.House]

Did you not know that children are the USUAL recipients of welfare?

I've never seen a child cash a welfare check...

 

[Sweet Willy]

Did you not know that children are the USUAL recipients of welfare?

I've never seen a child cash a welfare check...

I've never seen whales fuck.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Maybe I do have a comprehension problem.

No argument here.

Explain to me how old you believe a person to be at birth.

I said that a person is responsible for their decisions in life pretty much from birth.

What I did NOT say was that 3 year olds were cashing in on the welfare programs under discussion.

 

[Dr.House]

Did you not know that children are the USUAL recipients of welfare?

I've never seen a child cash a welfare check...

I've never seen whales fuck.

I don't believe it... I'll bet you're big into chubby porn...


But the topic was children receiving what they were intended to receive... I'm sure you knew that, didn't you?

 

[Sweet Willy]

I've never seen a child cash a welfare check...

I've never seen whales fuck.

I don't believe it... I'll bet you're big into chubby porn...


But the topic was children receiving what they were intended to receive... I'm sure you knew that, didn't you?

And do we have any evidence in this case that they did not?

 

[RadiomanATL]

This post explains a whole lot. You are completely detatched from reality. To say that we are responsible to have something to manage from birth is outrageous.

I didn't say that people are responsible to have something since birth. I said that they are responsible for their choices in life "pretty much" from birth. I say "pretty much" because it is impossible to put a hard age on when people become aware that their actions can have consequences.

For some it happens at 2 or 3. Others maybe 18 months. Even others maybe 5

To further contend that school children, born into poverty and poort environment have the equipment to be responsible and manage their education on their own is pure ignorance of the world.

I said 5th or 6th grade specifically. And yes, they certainly can have the equipment to deal with it. You don't have to be that old to realize that your current situation sucks and that an education is one of the surest ways out of it. Difference is that there must be a willingness to do so.

 

[Sweet Willy]

Maybe I do have a comprehension problem.

No argument here.

Explain to me how old you believe a person to be at birth.

I said that a person is responsible for their decisions in life pretty much from birth.

What I did NOT say was that 3 year olds were cashing in on the welfare programs under discussion.

Well who is? Do you have any evidence that anyone did not use this money to benefit their kids?