"If I had it my way, I'd stay home all day with my kids," Levenson said as she dropped the boys off Tuesday. "Then again, I love day care. My kids have learned so much."
Although Levenson said she is not sure she could replace her eldest son's preschool teachers, she is willing to try.
"There's times I just drive by and watch the kids," she said. "You'll never be able to get the kids' little years back."
But Priscilla Murillo of Canoga Park, a single mother with three children under age 5, said she wants to finish school and find a job as soon as possible. With her youngest child just a month old, Murillo, 27, could stay home now and still receive benefits. But she said the Welfare to Work program motivated her to continue pursuing her associate degree.
Can't afford to have so many kids? No worries! We will pay for you to watch your children. Thats right! You get paid to watch your own kids. All we have to do is tax the rich who..you know, finish school, get jobs and show some modicum of intelligence and foresight.
Ah, progressives. This must be the type of world they dream about!
NotForLong: on the surface of it, I can agree with your sentiment. But it seems like cutting off the many because of the "sins" of the few may not be smart.
The reason I say this is because I think the most important thing is to find out what happens to these people - and in turn the state of California - if they are cut off from the program. There are always repurcussions to the elimination of aid. Someone else always ends up paying in one form or another.
A single mother with 3 kids and one of those kids just a month old. Sigh...
I'm predicting within the next 10 years the US will have some sort of forced birth control.
__________________
"I want to stand as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all the kinds of things you can't see from the center." - Kurt Vonnegut
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act, but a habit."-- Aristotle
Or.... you could always have 14 like Octomom and turn it into a shitty reality TV show.
I agree with Ian. You can't punish all for the sins of a few, but let's look at how to change the rules so they don't get abused.
I'm curious, Eric.... what's your solution to this? Forced sterilization? Should she instead work several shitty minimum wage jobs and receive supplemental assistance on top of this indefinitely, or perhaps with the education, get a job that pays well enough to support herself and her family? What's your issue with this, precisely? At least the aid is helping this woman have a goal that doesn't involve creating an ass groove on a second hand couch while watching Jerry Springer--if we're going to paint with broad brushstrokes, here.
OK, Bob. That should work about as well as abstinence only education..... (banned eye roll).
Seriously, though.... I agree that people should be responsible about sex and contraception. For those that aren't, how do you propose fixing that?
And for the record, it takes two to make a baby. Where's baby daddy/daddies at in this?
So if we can't educate them about responsibility let's just pay for their spawn. Good policy. If she's 27 and wants to get her degree and a job why does she have a one month old? Will the state be picking up the day care costs if she gets a job?
Quote:
Now Levenson, 27, is about six months from earning her associate degree in culinary arts and has a job lined up at Ralphs.
The state paid for a degree so she can get a job in a grocery store? That's good bang for your buck.
__________________
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."
I agree with Ian. You can't punish all for the sins of a few, but let's look at how to change the rules so they don't get abused.
I'm not of the mind of punishing anyone, but I also don't think the rest of us should be responsible for paying for it. It just steams me to see kids struggling to pay for college and as soon as someone pops out a kid they get a free ride. Where is the justice in that.
If these women weren't having kids we would be experiencing population decline - generally somewhat of an economic near disaster. Us over educated highly/higher paid folks ain't reproducing ourself. (it is a problem, I am not proposing an answer)
The problem is that when society rewards bad behavior you get, surprise, bad behavior. It's a hard problem because on one hand the kids coming into world start out innocent. It's not their fault their parents were deadbeats or whatever.
The nicest solution is forced birth control if you're receiving any sort of state assistance. This would include welfare, food stamps, section 8 housing, etc... At least this way, the person would not put themselves into even more trouble.
One of the harsher solutions is simply take away any additional kids that you have while already on public assistance. Babies are the easiest to get adopted and just maybe that can give the kids a fighting chance at being successful.
__________________
"I want to stand as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all the kinds of things you can't see from the center." - Kurt Vonnegut
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act, but a habit."-- Aristotle
If these women weren't having kids we would be experiencing population decline - generally somewhat of an economic near disaster. Us over educated highly/higher paid folks ain't reproducing ourself. (it is a problem, I am not proposing an answer)
Earlier similar to Idiocracy!
__________________
Renegade HR: Recruit great people. Inspire them to do amazing things. | http://renegadehr.net
The problem is that when society rewards bad behavior you get, surprise, bad behavior. It's a hard problem because on one hand the kids coming into world start out innocent. It's not their fault their parents were deadbeats or whatever.
The nicest solution is forced birth control if you're receiving any sort of state assistance. This would include welfare, food stamps, section 8 housing, etc... At least this way, the person would not put themselves into even more trouble.
One of the harsher solutions is simply take away any additional kids that you have while already on public assistance. Babies are the easiest to get adopted and just maybe that can give the kids a fighting chance at being successful.
What your suggesting so fiercely violates the core of the American spirit, I'm not even sure how best to respond to it.
__________________
Renegade HR: Recruit great people. Inspire them to do amazing things. | http://renegadehr.net
One of the harsher solutions is simply take away any additional kids that you have while already on public assistance. Babies are the easiest to get adopted and just maybe that can give the kids a fighting chance at being successful.
LMAO good luck with that maybe you should move to China where that might go over, here not so much.
__________________
Never underestimate the predictability of stupidity.
What your suggesting so fiercely violates the core of the American spirit, I'm not even sure how best to respond to it.
I've always thought personal liberties along with personal responsibility was at the core of the American spirit. Half of that equation has already been 'fiercely' violated and you can't have one without the other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvernacchio
LMAO good luck with that maybe you should move to China where that might go over, here not so much.
Exactly, what I was pointing out is that there is no easy solution. You don't want to punish the kids for their parents being idiots, but you also cannot continue to support repeated poor decision making from the parents. All we're doing as a society right now is perpetuating the cycle.
__________________
"I want to stand as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all the kinds of things you can't see from the center." - Kurt Vonnegut
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act, but a habit."-- Aristotle
Can't afford to have so many kids? No worries! We will pay for you to watch your children. Thats right! You get paid to watch your own kids. All we have to do is tax the rich who..you know, finish school, get jobs and show some modicum of intelligence and foresight.
Ah, progressives. This must be the type of world they dream about!
The neo-cons in their brilliant intelligence and foresight believe that abstinence only education should be taught, that birth control should not be available over the counter or covered by medical insurance, that it shouldnt be accessed by teens, and that abortion should be illegal. Thats true brilliance I say!
Whats even more striking is how neo-cons bitch about TANF but then will pony up on TARP. Nancy Folbre wrote a nice piece on TARP VS TANF. To the others bitching about costs and hinging on economics, you have to realize that neoclassical economics doesnt focus on the value of the household sector or its contribution to GDP. Additionally, you have to look at the impact of contraceptive freedom on female labor supply
There are a lot of assumptions being made about the woman quoted, but if you read the article youll see:
Quote:
After Antoinette Levenson's husband was laid off by a boat dealership two years ago, the mother of two applied for cash assistance and joined the state's Welfare to Work program.
Now Levenson, 27, is about six months from earning her associate degree in culinary arts and has a job lined up at Ralphs. She receives about $750 a month in assistance. The state also pays about $1,000 a month for her sons, Jaden, 4, and Gavyn, 2, to attend Canyon Vista Children's Learning Center in Chatsworth while she finishes school.
So she was married and her hub got laid off, but the economy churned and she had to either 1) reskill or 2) enter the job market. The fact that we have a male bread winner in this bias (i.e. the male is assumed to be the primary earner so benefits tend to be skewed towards males, and women are expected to sacrifice their careers to specialize in the home), its astounding that theres so much criticism when someone is using the social safety net to raise themselves up. Never mind the taxes she'll pay back once shes able to start working again.
As for the 2nd woman, its interesting that most of you assume that just because she is currently single that she was always single; hence, ignoring any possibility that she got divorced or was in a previous relationship. Its much easier to think that shes just popping babies rather than entertain the thought that she got laid off from a job, fell ill, etc.
welfare reform is dedicated to reducing welfare reliance, but has not made poverty reduction a goal or concern. The expectation is that the primary adult in the family responsible for generating stable income and taking care of children be employed full-time, but that is not realistic with young children unless you have a kinship network. Additionally, instability in the poor sector (and lack of addressing by these programs) results in cyclical poverty.
On a more specific level, we need to realize the constraints of a care giver and tailor policy accordingly. For example, we typically think of soccer moms as running around doing errands, housework, caring, etc. and never having enough time. How is it that we expect low income mothers to do this AND work a 40hr job? Moreover, say welfare mothers dont work (which is vastly untrue), dont you think that a large influx of them into the labor market will increase the supply of labor and thus decrease the price paid (ie wage) to that labor, thereby making poverty even worse? The solution by politicians is to get married, but this is just an accounting trick to get off welfare because two people earning low incomes might make enough to not be considered in poverty.
So things that may be considered are child care, 'parent friendly' policies such as maternity leave for both parents that can expire, and other policies that move jobs away from the male breadwinner model (i.e. assuming that males are the primary earners and skewing work in their favor).
As for sterilization? Why the gender bias of putting the onus only on women?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3sweeties
I'm not of the mind of punishing anyone, but I also don't think the rest of us should be responsible for paying for it. It just steams me to see kids struggling to pay for college and as soon as someone pops out a kid they get a free ride. Where is the justice in that.
__________________
"The strongest steel goes through the hottest fires."-Anonymous
"When you begin to believe nothing is heavy, all weights become light." -Rossbow
"Just remember, somewhere there is a little Chinese girl warming up with your max."-Jim Convroy
"It's a round hole, dammit. Everyone fits."--Anonymous Mod at Strengthmill
The neo-cons in their brilliant intelligence and foresight believe that abstinence only education should be taught, that birth control should not be available over the counter or covered by medical insurance, that it shouldnt be accessed by teens, and that abortion should be illegal. Thats true brilliance I say!
Perhaps things have changed in the last couple years, but at least in SC you could get free birth control (pills for women, condoms for guys) from any of the local community clinics. I knew a girl who didn't have very much money because she only working part time while finishing up school and got her birth control there.
I do agree that more education would be helpful though.
__________________
"I want to stand as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all the kinds of things you can't see from the center." - Kurt Vonnegut
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act, but a habit."-- Aristotle
If the state tried to require birth control to receive assistance, how soon do you think it would be before there would be demonstrations by Catholics, Fundamentalists, Right to Lifers, Birth Control is a genocide against minoritiesers, etc. demonstrating in front of the state house?
Heck someone would probably shoot at one of the state congressmen as well.
The neo-cons in their brilliant intelligence and foresight believe that abstinence only education should be taught, that birth control should not be available over the counter or covered by medical insurance, that it shouldnt be accessed by teens, and that abortion should be illegal. Thats true brilliance I say!
Whoa! Hold on a minute. I have always contended that the term "neo-con" was used so indiscriminately that whatever usefulness it had as a descriptive term, was pretty much gone. But this is a new one on me. Neo-con, as I understand the term, describes a certain position on foreign policy issues. Essentially, a messianic, interventionist impulse coming from people who are "conservative" in comparison to the traditional, liberal, messianic interventionism. I suppose that means, messianic interventionists who are anti-socialist and culturally chauvinistic, or something like that.
Applying the term with reference to social or domeistic issues makes little sense to me.
Result of the Lunatic Left
Linear Mode
