Thanks everyone! Porno mystery solved!

[SaadBell 0]

Since I work in the field of public assistance, I have to chime in on this hot topic. There are a lot of myths about the welfare system that still people totally believe.

1. Poor women have more children because of the "financial incentives" of welfare benefits.

Repeated studies show no correlation between benefit levels and women's choice to have children. States providing relatively higher benefits do not show higher birth rates among recipients.

In any case, welfare allowances are far too low to serve as any kind of "incentive": A mother on welfare can expect about $90 in additional AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) benefits if she has another child.

Furthermore, the real value of AFDC benefits, which do not rise with inflation, has fallen 37 percent during the last two decades Birth rates among poor women have not dropped correspondingly.

The average family receiving AFDC has 1.9 children -- about the same as the national average.

2. We don't subsidize middle-class families.

Much of the welfare debate has centered around the idea of "family caps"--denying additional benefits to women who have children while receiving aid. This is often presented as simple justice: "A family that works does not get a raise for having a child. Why then should a family that doesn't work?

In fact, of course, families do receive a premium for additional children, in the form of a $2,450 tax deduction. There are also tax credits to partially cover childcare expenses, up to a maximum of $2,400 per child. No pundit has suggested that middle-class families base their decision to have children on these "perks."

3. The public is fed up with spending money on the poor.

"The suspicion that poorer people are getting something for nothing is much harder to bear than the visible good fortune of the richer," wrote columnist Mary McGrory. But contrary to such claims from media pundits, the general public is not so hard-hearted. In a December 1994 poll by the Center for the Study of Policy Attitudes (CSPA), 80 percent of respondents agreed that the government has "a responsibility to try to do away with poverty."

Support for "welfare" is lower than support for "assistance to the poor," but when CSPA asked people about their support for AFDC, described as "the federal welfare program which provides financial support for unemployed poor single mothers with children," only 21 percent said funding should be cut, while 29 percent said it should be increased.

4. We've spent over $5 trillion on welfare since the '60s and it hasn't worked.

Conservatives and liberals alike use this claim as proof that federal poverty programs don't work, since after all that "lavish" spending, people are still poor. But spending on AFDC, the program normally referred to as welfare, totaled less than $500 billion from 1964 to 1994--less than 1.5 percent of federal outlays for that period, and about what the Pentagon spends in two years.

To get the $5 trillion figure, "welfare spending" must be defined to include all means-tested programs, including Medicaid, food stamps, student lunches, scholarship aid and many other programs. Medicaid, which is by far the largest component of the $5 trillion, goes mostly to the elderly and disabled; only about 16 percent of Medicaid spending goes to health care for AFDC recipients.

Furthermore, the poverty rate did fall between 1964 and 1973, from 19 percent to 11 percent, with the advent of "Great Society" programs. Since the 1970s, economic forces like declining real wages as well as reduced benefit levels have contributed to rising poverty rates.

5. Anyone who wants to get off welfare can just get a job.

Many welfare recipients do work to supplement meager benefits. But workforce discrimination and the lack of affordable childcare make working outside the home difficult for single mothers. And the low-wage, no-benefit jobs available to most AFDC recipients simply does not pay enough to lift a family out of poverty.

Although it is almost never mentioned in conjunction with the welfare debate, the U.S. Federal Reserve has an official policy of raising interest rates whenever unemployment falls below a certain point--now about 6.2 percent In other words, if all the unemployed women on welfare were to find jobs, currently employed people would have to be thrown out of work to keep the economy from "overheating."

I have to personally add that in all my years of public service I have never seen someone on assistance living the good life. They struggle just to survive, and as far as having a lot of children, another myth, and most don’t have over 3 children. The majorities of women on assistance were once married and middle class and enjoyed the so called American dream, and then divorce hits or the death of a spouse or something happens to change their way of life. It is devastating to see someone lose everything and try to ink out a living on 8 dollars an hour job to support two children. The cash assistance and the food stamps are nothing, I know one mother with two children who works and draws food stamps and she gets 72 dollars a month for food stamps to feed this family for a whole month. It is the American idea of pulling oneself up by their boot straps, I use to feel that way in the old days, but seeing the situation up front and in my face has change my feelings on this subject.

And Kat is correct about the state of Florida, we give you nothing. By the time someone in need comes to our office, they are usually at the end of their rope, they have pride and they feel ashamed. So instead of preventing someone from getting kick out of their home, or starve, we wait until they are on the streets. An example is a woman who noticed a spot on her arm that looked a little specious, goes to the public doctor who gives her appointment to a dermatologist; it took four months for her to get in to see the specialist. What she had was a melanoma, and it spread to her lungs, so now instead of a simple and cheaper procedure to have that removed, we now have to spend a lot more money, and most likely she will lose her life. It happens daily and makes me crazy; we are not big on prevention but try to mop up the mess that should have never happened in the first place. Just my two cents.

[Y's_habibitk 2]

We have seriously hijacked this thread huh?

[~Jackie~ 30]

[TRELAWNY PARISH 10]

Since I work in the field of public assistance, I have to chime in on this hot topic. There are a lot of myths about the welfare system that still people totally believe.

1. Poor women have more children because of the "financial incentives" of welfare benefits.

Repeated studies show no correlation between benefit levels and women's choice to have children. States providing relatively higher benefits do not show higher birth rates among recipients.

In any case, welfare allowances are far too low to serve as any kind of "incentive": A mother on welfare can expect about $90 in additional AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) benefits if she has another child.

Furthermore, the real value of AFDC benefits, which do not rise with inflation, has fallen 37 percent during the last two decades Birth rates among poor women have not dropped correspondingly.

The average family receiving AFDC has 1.9 children -- about the same as the national average.

2. We don't subsidize middle-class families.

Much of the welfare debate has centered around the idea of "family caps"--denying additional benefits to women who have children while receiving aid. This is often presented as simple justice: "A family that works does not get a raise for having a child. Why then should a family that doesn't work?

In fact, of course, families do receive a premium for additional children, in the form of a $2,450 tax deduction. There are also tax credits to partially cover childcare expenses, up to a maximum of $2,400 per child. No pundit has suggested that middle-class families base their decision to have children on these "perks."

3. The public is fed up with spending money on the poor.

"The suspicion that poorer people are getting something for nothing is much harder to bear than the visible good fortune of the richer," wrote columnist Mary McGrory. But contrary to such claims from media pundits, the general public is not so hard-hearted. In a December 1994 poll by the Center for the Study of Policy Attitudes (CSPA), 80 percent of respondents agreed that the government has "a responsibility to try to do away with poverty."

Support for "welfare" is lower than support for "assistance to the poor," but when CSPA asked people about their support for AFDC, described as "the federal welfare program which provides financial support for unemployed poor single mothers with children," only 21 percent said funding should be cut, while 29 percent said it should be increased.

4. We've spent over $5 trillion on welfare since the '60s and it hasn't worked.

Conservatives and liberals alike use this claim as proof that federal poverty programs don't work, since after all that "lavish" spending, people are still poor. But spending on AFDC, the program normally referred to as welfare, totaled less than $500 billion from 1964 to 1994--less than 1.5 percent of federal outlays for that period, and about what the Pentagon spends in two years.

To get the $5 trillion figure, "welfare spending" must be defined to include all means-tested programs, including Medicaid, food stamps, student lunches, scholarship aid and many other programs. Medicaid, which is by far the largest component of the $5 trillion, goes mostly to the elderly and disabled; only about 16 percent of Medicaid spending goes to health care for AFDC recipients.

Furthermore, the poverty rate did fall between 1964 and 1973, from 19 percent to 11 percent, with the advent of "Great Society" programs. Since the 1970s, economic forces like declining real wages as well as reduced benefit levels have contributed to rising poverty rates.

5. Anyone who wants to get off welfare can just get a job.

Many welfare recipients do work to supplement meager benefits. But workforce discrimination and the lack of affordable childcare make working outside the home difficult for single mothers. And the low-wage, no-benefit jobs available to most AFDC recipients simply does not pay enough to lift a family out of poverty.

Although it is almost never mentioned in conjunction with the welfare debate, the U.S. Federal Reserve has an official policy of raising interest rates whenever unemployment falls below a certain point--now about 6.2 percent In other words, if all the unemployed women on welfare were to find jobs, currently employed people would have to be thrown out of work to keep the economy from "overheating."

I have to personally add that in all my years of public service I have never seen someone on assistance living the good life. They struggle just to survive, and as far as having a lot of children, another myth, and most don't have over 3 children. The majorities of women on assistance were once married and middle class and enjoyed the so called American dream, and then divorce hits or the death of a spouse or something happens to change their way of life. It is devastating to see someone lose everything and try to ink out a living on 8 dollars an hour job to support two children. The cash assistance and the food stamps are nothing, I know one mother with two children who works and draws food stamps and she gets 72 dollars a month for food stamps to feed this family for a whole month. It is the American idea of pulling oneself up by their boot straps, I use to feel that way in the old days, but seeing the situation up front and in my face has change my feelings on this subject.

And Kat is correct about the state of Florida, we give you nothing. By the time someone in need comes to our office, they are usually at the end of their rope, they have pride and they feel ashamed. So instead of preventing someone from getting kick out of their home, or starve, we wait until they are on the streets. An example is a woman who noticed a spot on her arm that looked a little specious, goes to the public doctor who gives her appointment to a dermatologist; it took four months for her to get in to see the specialist. What she had was a melanoma, and it spread to her lungs, so now instead of a simple and cheaper procedure to have that removed, we now have to spend a lot more money, and most likely she will lose her life. It happens daily and makes me crazy; we are not big on prevention but try to mop up the mess that should have never happened in the first place. Just my two cents.

My girl TELL IT! I have friend who are very well educated, but when something slams you, it's hard to get back on both of your feet quickly. My friends were looked at differently because they were educated and asking for assistance. It's kind of hard to get back into the work force with 4 young children, been a stay at home mom since the 1st was born and is now a single parent.

[~Jackie~ 30]

Porno Mystery Solved.....

welfare topics can be started in the Off Topic forum.

jJ

[Jenn! 918]

I do agree that having a child knowing that you cannot support would be selfish. BUT, sometimes things have a way of working themselves out

This is all I was trying to say, so I'm confused by all the general responses regarding the merits of the welfare system - I feel like the responses are implying I've said something that I have not said. I'd rather not get into my personal life, but I want to clarify, yet again, that I am not opposed to public assistance.

[morocco4ever 63]

I guess I'm really sounding like a Republican, huh?

Either that, or you are tired of people who abuse the system. Can't say I blame you on that one.

see what happens when you become a mod? you turn republican!

I guess I had better not ever become a mod.

maybe it's all part of ewok's master plan.

You have all fallen into a trap now haven't you. That is the only explanation.

soon, you will be looking for a gwb bumper sticker.

When HE!! freezes over!

I agree with Jenn, somehow this topic got off on some of us not agreeing with assistance. I am all for assistance, but I tell you, there are people who abuse the system. Maybe the average recepient isn't living well on the benefits, but a person that has money under the table, and knows how to use the system, and don't care if they take food out of the mouth of babies, they can and will abuse the system. To believe that it doesn't happen is hiding your head in the sand.

Sorry to the OP for taking this off topic. I think you already know that we are all happy that you have found peace in your situation.

[myeyes1010 0]

Thanks JJ But it's fallin into the forum abyss LOL. It happens on every forum I have ever seen, they always go off topic. It is only frustrating when you really want answers or advice and have to read thru many different off topic comments to get to "topic" comments. Luckily this thread was just to help someone else consider the possibility of a scam porn site in case theyre man is also innocent. Just hope the get that from it. LOL...Myeyes out

[morocco4ever 63]

Thanks JJ But it's fallin into the forum abyss LOL. It happens on every forum I have ever seen, they always go off topic. It is only frustrating when you really want answers or advice and have to read thru many different off topic comments to get to "topic" comments. Luckily this thread was just to help someone else consider the possibility of a scam porn site in case theyre man is also innocent. Just hope the get that from it. LOL...Myeyes out

Actually the original post had pretty much served its purpose which is why its falling into the forum abyss, and yes it does tend to go off topic.