Reply With Quote
It's the having a kid while not being able to support them that's the issue. Yes, you can be working and still receive tanf. That doesn't make having a kid while being in that situation a good idea. What are you not getting?
TANF sets forth the following work requirements in order to qualify for benefits:[21]
Big bad TANF... work requirements. That seems to fit the bill for promoting responsibility.Recipients (with few exceptions) must work as soon as they are job ready or no later than two years after coming on assistance.
Single parents are required to participate in work activities for at least 30 hours per week. Two-parent families must participate in work activities 35 or 55 hours a week, depending upon cir stances.
Failure to participate in work requirements can result in a reduction or termination of benefits to the family.
States, in fiscal year 2004, have to ensure that 50 percent of all families and 90 percent of two-parent families are participating in work activities. If a state meets these goals without restricting eligibility, it can receive a caseload reduction credit. This credit reduces the minimum participation rates the state must achieve to continue receiving federal funding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempora...Needy_FamiliesWhile states are given more flexibility in the design and implementation of public assistance, they must do so within various provisions of the law:[22]
Provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives;
end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage;
prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and establish annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies;
and encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.
Seems like it is designed around personal responsibility. Maybe we are talking about some other welfare program.
It's the having a kid while not being able to support them that's the issue. Yes, you can be working and still receive tanf. That doesn't make having a kid while being in that situation a good idea. What are you not getting?
I think everyone agrees that there should be a safety net, but is it sustainable when the number of people on food stamps approaches the number of full time private sector workers?
Foster Care
Maybe this is it.
Do we need to cut this program?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foster_care
We could simply end this welfare. Not sure what happens to all the kids though.
vy? Your solution to the children?
How many TANF recipients does this apply to?
What %
A good faith attempt. I can respect that.
I will be happy to start combing through what I can find in the way of specific programs.
Found this that works as a good list of what the people most familiar with the budget consider "welfare"
http://www.budget.senate.gov/republi...4-2fd5bcedfeb5
It from Republicans in the Senate, so it is filled with stilted language and cherry-picked figures designed to provoke outrage, but does provide a fair working list of potential targets.
Nvm, misread.
Are you asking me how many people have children while on welfare? I don't know, do you?
Last edited by vy65; 11-19-2013 at 11:09 PM.
Link?
http://feedingamerica.org/how-we-fig...realities.aspx76% of SNAP households included a child, an elderly person, or a disabled person. These vulnerable households receive 83% of all SNAP benefits.[i]
SNAP eligibility is limited to households with gross income of no more than 130% of the federal poverty guideline, but the majority of households have income well below the maximum: 83% of SNAP households have gross income at or below 100% of the poverty guideline ($19,530 for a family of 3 in 2013), and these households receive about 91% of all benefits. 61% of SNAP households have gross income at or below 75% of the poverty guideline ($14,648 for a family of 3 in 2013).[ii]
The average SNAP household has a gross monthly income of $744; net monthly income of $338 after the standard deduction and, for certain households, deductions for child care, medical expenses, and shelter costs; and countable resources of $331, such as a bank account.[iii]
Here are some of the statistics.
Maybe you can tell me who to cut off of this program, since it is in the OP.
So even people who had jobs and could afford the kids they had when they had them would lose benefits?
What about the people who had kids when they could afford them and got too sick to work?
What about them? That's not the situation I'm concerned about.
What about the person who is on welfare on has a kid?
I am not the one claiming there is a huge problem to solve.
In this case, it very definitely involves numbers and quantification. If you can't even specifically identify who to cut off the rolls, you are not going to get your policy solution.
This involves knowing who is on the program and gathering data. Setting up the parameters of what kind of person you want to kick off, then spending money monitoring the recipients for that data.
Given that lifetime benefits are limited to 5 years, and the vast majority are on it for less than two years, the data would suggest your population would have to be fairly small. People just don't stay on this program long enough to actually have kids.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 11-19-2013 at 11:29 PM.
Seems like it is functioning as planned. Bad economic results produce more need.SNAP participation historically follows unemployment with a slight lag. SNAP participation grew during the recession, responding quickly and effectively to increased need. As the number of unemployed people increased by 94% from 2007 to 2011, SNAP responded with a 70% increase in participation over the same period. [iv]
As the economy recovers and people go back to work, SNAP participation and program costs, too, can be expected to decline. Unemployment has begun to slowly fall, and SNAP participation growth has flattened out. The Congressional Budget Office projects SNAP participation to begin declining in 2015, with both unemployment and SNAP participation returning to near pre-recession levels by 2022.[v]
Kind of why the government can do this, and private charities can't pick up the slack.
Thanks. I'll look into it a bit later.
Still curious to find out what you do personally to help the less fortunate/lazy. I have the upmost respect for those who contribute first hand as opposed to those thinking being taxed counts as some moral good to society.
You have a remarkably narrowminded view regarding personal responsibility.
pu·ni·tive
ˈpyo͞onətiv/
adjective
adjective: punitive; adjective: punitory
1.
inflicting or intended as punishment.
When I hold my kid responsible for his actions and send him to bed without supper then that is a punishment. You are witholding food aid from them as a consequence of not passing the credit check when they got knocked up. It is by definition a punitive measure. Shall we define punishment too? You are linking social services to reproductive rights.
This is eugenics through and through.
Why not sterilize them? They did not pass the credit check to have kids and therefor they do not 'deserve' them.
Last edited by FuzzyLumpkins; 11-20-2013 at 03:00 AM.
Well heck.
I thought you would hear Brad Pitt in Inglorious Bas s calling for the Bear Jew.
Im crushed. No, wait, you would be.
A bit more data, culled from the databases of TANF:
There is far more there beyond this. Rather than posting a wall of text here is the link for those of you who want to actually inform yourselves:The average monthly number of TANF families was 1,847,155 in FY 2010. The estimated average monthly number of TANF recipients was 1,084,828 adults and 3,280,153 children. The average monthly number of TANF families increased in 47 States and reflects an overall seven percent increase from 1,726,560 families in FY 2009. California had the largest number of TANF families in FY 2010 with a monthly average of 576,150, accounting for 31 percent of the U.S. total. New York ranked second with an average monthly caseload of 121,240. Ohio ranked third with a monthly average of 103, 000. California, New York and Ohio had a combined monthly average of 800,400, accounting for 43.3 percent of U.S. totals. The average number of persons in TANF families was 2.4, including an average of 1.8 recipient children.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/...hap10-ys-final
A note on personal responsibility:
understanding the reasons for case closure is limited by the fact that States reported 21.6 percent of all cases as closed due to “other” unspecified reasons. For example, while independent studies have typically found that half or more of families that stop receiving assistance leave as a result of employment, States reported only 16.6 percent of cases closing due to employment. Many closures due to employment are coded as failure to cooperate or as some other category because at the point of closure
Posted it a while back.
Recapping:
Paycheck deductions for two children's charities.
Wife and I used to help prepare meals at a homeless shelter. This has stopped due to time constraints (work has crowded out most spare time).
Work will ease up in a year or so, and I will probably volunteer for CASA, something I very deeply believe in.
http://www.casaforchildren.org/site/....BE9A/Home.htm
Taking care of my own family at the moment is more pressing.
The available evidence suggests this is a small portion of the overall recipients. TANF is roughly 1% of the federal budget. If 10% of all funds go to such people, you are talking about .1% of all federal spending.
If your goal is to reduce your tax burden, I would suggest cutting veterans health benefits, or social security. Even tiny changes to that will yield massive tax savings because of the much larger share of federal spending on those two items. Alternately, you could reduce Federal spending on the capital gains tax, which is heavily subsidized by people paying taxes on wages.
Speaking of time constraints, must go.
I would have just called it what it was and left it at that - argumentum ad misericordiam logical fallacy. The whole disaster porn tactic looked evasive imho.
"independent studies have typically found that half or more of families that stop receiving assistance leave as a result of employment"
dumb guess, just might be right: families that start receiving assistance join as a result of unemployment, unemployment at the 7% official and level and much higher totally is looking like it's becoming Euro-style structural.
Ohio Walmart Holds Food Drive For Its Own Employees
Activists have long criticized Walmart for failing to pay its employees living wages, and instead relying on the state to step in and pay for the healthcare and food of workers. In Canton, Ohio, another Walmart recently demonstrated this kind of corporate welfare by holding a food drive—for its own employees.
“Please donate food items so associates in need can enjoy Thanksgiving dinner,” reads a sign accompanied by several plastic bins.
Understandably, the food drive has sparked outrage in the area.
“That Walmart would have the audacity to ask low-wage workers to donate food to other low-wage workers—to me, it is a moral outrage,” Norma Mills, a customer at the store, told the Plain Dealer.
A company spokesman defended the drive, telling the Plain Dealer it is evidence that employees care about each other. And it’s a good thing they care about their fellow workers because Walmart certainly doesn’t care about its employees.
In the wake of the Ohio Walmart food drive story, Strike Debt, an offshoot of the Occupy Wall Street movement, raised on interesting question on Twitter: “Why not just pay a living wage?”
Stephen Gandel, a senior editor at Fortune, recently penned an op-ed in which he argued Walmart could afford to give its employees a 50 percent raise without negatively affecting shareholders.
I called a couple of really smart economists to get it “peer”-reviewed. Sendhil Mullainathan, who teaches at MIT and received a MacArthur genius grant for his work in behavioral economics a few years ago, said he basically came to a similar conclusion as mine a few years ago. He says companies have more discretion in setting wages then they let on. “Really the question is not whether this is possible but why some companies don’t do it [this way],” says Mullainathan.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/177241...-own-employees
McDonald’s to employees: Break your food into small pieces to feel full and sell your Christmas presents for cash
The fast-food giant McDonald’s is urging employees to break up food into smaller pieces to feel full or sell their Christmas presents for extra money.
The restaurant chain made the recommendations on its “McResource” employee website to help workers manage stress, health and finances.
The company recommended “breaking food into pieces” to feel more full on less food, singing away stress and taking two vacations a year to lower the risk of heart attack, as well as “selling some of your unwanted possessions on eBay or Craigslist could bring in some quick cash.”
The recommendations were publicized Tuesday by the group Low Pay Is Not OK, which advocates higher wages for fast-food workers, but McDonald’s claims the advice was taken out of context.
“This is an attempt by an outside organization to undermine a well-intended employee assistance resourcewebsite by taking isolated portions out of context,”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/2...ents-for-cash/
"employee assistance resource" which doesn't mean a living wage
btw, I read, Chris Hayes' show?, where 40% of US workers make less than $20K/year.
Hmmm. Interesting.
What specific argument was being advanced there?
The form is:
In this case, the matter being considered was the results of a proposed action.The informal structure of the ad misericordiam usually is something like this:
Person L argues statement p or argument A.
L deserves pity because of cir stance y.
Cir stance y is irrelevant to p or A.
Statement p is true or argument A is good.
The pictures were presented to demonstrate the results of that action, and directly relevant.
That they inspire human pity was a side effect, but not central to why I presented them.
Oh, Officer, There's no reason to give me a traffic ticket for going too fast because I was just on my way to the hospital to see my wife who is in serious condition to tell her I just lost my job and the car will be repossessed.As stated the primary purpose was to show that starvation and neglect are harmful to humans.Public Schools, K through 12, need to have much easier exams for students because teachers don't fully realize the extent of the emotional repercussions of the sorrow and depression of the many students who could score much better on easier exams.
Is evidence to that effect relevant to the assertion?
Ultimately, the purpose was to get the statement that starvation and neglect as harmful to human children to prove the first section of the statement:
"Vy65 and, subsequently, Deadlydynasty want to harm children."
Given: starvation is harmful to humans, i.e. starvation equals harm
Given: Vy65 and Deadlynasty want to starve children.
A simple subs ution of "harm" for "starve" gets me to the statement I was asserting.
It seems pretty directly relevant to having the first given accepted as true. (edit-not that anyone with some common sense might deny that)
Last edited by RandomGuy; 11-20-2013 at 01:29 PM.
Random Guy likes to see starving and homeless children, since he has no interest in addressing why there's all these supposed starving and homeless children.
Wal-Mart could pay every U.S. employee $14.89 just by not buying its own stock
Rather than buying stock to enrich Waltons, says new report, Wal-Mart could use the same cash to give $5.83 raises
Wal-Mart could afford to hike every U.S. employee’s hourly wage to at least $14.89 an hour just by not repurchasing its own stock, according to a new report from the progressive think tank Demos.
“We find that if Walmart redirected the $7.6 billion it spends annually on repurchases of its own company stock, these funds could be used to give Walmart’s low-paid workers a raise of $5.83 an hour, more than enough to ensure that all Walmart workers are paid a wage equivalent to at least $25,000 a year for full-time work,” authors Catherine Ruetschlin and Amy Traub write in the Demos paper, “A Higher Wage Is Possible: How Walmart Can Invest in Its Workforce Without Costing Customers a Dime.”
Wal-Mart announced $15 billion in additional stock repurchases at its June annual shareholder meeting, which was attended by thousands of workers flown in from around the world by Wal-Mart, as well as dozens of striking Wal-Mart worker-activists from the labor group OUR Walmart. Also noting a Bloomberg estimate that Wal-Mart repurchased roughly $36 billion in stock in the four prior fiscal years,
how much Wal-Mart currently pays U.S. employees is a contentious question. The company pegs its average hourly wage at $12.78, but that figure includes managers and excludes workers who aren’t full-time. Drawing on 2011 IBISworld data and GlassDoor.com surveys, OUR Walmart activists have pegged the wage at less than $9 per hour. Like Demos, they’ve called for a wage floor of $25,000 a year. OUR Walmart is closely tied to the United Food & Commercial Workers union. After Wal-Mart’s U.S. CEO said in a Goldman Sachs presentation that over 425,000 employees make more than $25,000 annually, OUR Walmart seized on the comment as an implicit admission that the majority make less. Workers have mounted a series of short-term work stoppages in several cities over the past month in the lead-up to a planned “Black Friday” day of strikes and protests next week.
http://www.salon.com/2013/11/19/wal_...its_own_stock/
When the mgmt and board want to enrich themselves by selling Walmart stock back to the company, the Waltons agree completely, while US taxpayers subsidize Walmart with $Bs of public assistance paid to Walmart workers.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
