No restrictions on how $16.5B of welfare money is used

#1

IBlvNTmWrk

Dawn of a New Day
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
9,205
Likes
4,657
#1
For those in government looking for places to cut spending, it seems this would be a good place to start. The sad thing is this is an area that should receive support, but it completely blows my mind that with today's technology the government doesn't restrict how this money is spent. Complete negligence imo.

Georgia's Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program, known as TANF, received $52 million in federal money this year. Nationally the program is budgeted at $16.5 billion.

A Whistleblower 2 Investigation revealed that TANF cards were swiped at Club Wax, a strip club in southwest Atlanta and at Club Onyx, a strip club on Chesire Bridge Road. TANF recipients used their cards 584 times at Jaxx Beer in Albany, Ga; those swipes accounted for $118,198. TANF recipients spent $5,840 at C H Liquor on McDonough Boulevard in Atlanta. A TANF card was used at the Governors Golf Course in Acworth, and in 10 transactions TANF recipients spent $400 at a Godiva chocolate store in Austell. We found swipes at the Tidewater Beach Resort in Panama City, and at shops at the Venetian Hotel in Las Vegas.

Carnesale told Belcher the same card that carries the relatively small amounts of welfare money also carries, for many families, much larger amounts for food stamps, now called the SNAP Program.

There are restrictions on how SNAP money is spent but no restrictions on TANF money.

Welfare Money Spent On Luxury Items - News Story - WSB Atlanta
 
#3
#3
If they have these kinds of controls for EBT, they can have them for TANF. This is ridiculous.

Completely agree. I was just reading your comment in another thread regarding welfare. Even though they don't restrict (or apparently even track) how money is spent, they do keep a record of how the funds are allocated. Surprisingly to me, only a small percentage is used for job support (transportation to work, job hunting, etc.) with the vast majority going to family members who care for welfare-eligible children.

There is still a notion of women being irresponsible and having children so they know they can be lazy and get government assistance. Does anybody here know any welfare moms? Have they told you they like getting paltry sums and living at or near poverty? Do you honestly think the majority of them would tell you that they have no interest in seeking work again? Don't tell me it ain't so bad. The amount paid to cash welfare recipients has dropped since the 90's -- particularly with the TANF act signed in by Clinton.

Among the problems we face is a deincentivization of obtaining decent work for single moms (insert stripper joke here). Put yourself in one's shoes. You're a 23 year old mother of two young children, not yet old enough to be in preschool. You can't afford childcare and putting together a patchwork of babysitters is difficult and inconsistent at best. Do you: A) Get a minimum wage job at 32 hours a week, significantly reducing your ability to provide for your children and cutting back or eliminating your welfare amounts and most importantly jeopardizing Medicaid benefits, or do you B) maintain welfare status so you can ensure medical coverage for yourself and your family knowing you can scrape together what you need on a month to month basis, though you have no ability to save?

SCHIP has made some advances in providing care for children. I don't think anybody would be alright with penalizing kids for being born into crappy situations and denying them basic healthcare. But their mothers?

Everybody in this debate sees the same goal: Getting as many people off welfare as possible. But a simple look around will show that poverty as is, is a cyclical thing. Many people revert to an individualist approach to the problem, that if people wanted out they would pick themselves up by the boot straps and improve their lot. But once somebody is in a cycle of poverty, that happens at a very, very low rate.

My point is that welfare and Medicaid as it exists is a crappy patchwork system that only results in more poverty. Instead of providing people with enough to not starve, how about providing a way for them to take themselves and improve their value of human capital, so that they have a decent shot at pulling themselves out of poverty and eventually pay more back to society than they take from it? And one that allows single mothers to raise healthy children that won't grow up to be truants and eventually criminals? Or maybe the ability to work towards a four year degree should they decide to work hard enough for one.

There is a lot of inefficiency and many holes in our POS patchwork public assistance programs. They need major overhauling, but making these massive cuts is making the choice to cut off many of these communities to fend for themselves. I can promise this will result in a lot more problems than we currently face. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
 
#4
#4
That's the way it should be. IMO the primary role of a mother of young children absent a father should be being a good mother, not a wage-earner.

This sort of tracking needs to be in place, but the premise of cutting everybody off because a handful of people are abusing the system is ridiculous. It's the exact equivalent of Gibbs wanting to axe capitalism because a few dudes on Wall Street ride the bubble while the rest of us pay for it.
 
#5
#5
That's the way it should be. IMO the primary role of a mother of young children absent a father should be being a good mother, not a wage-earner.

This sort of tracking needs to be in place, but the premise of cutting everybody off because a handful of people are abusing the system is ridiculous. It's the exact equivalent of Gibbs wanting to axe capitalism because a few dudes on Wall Street ride the bubble while the rest of us pay for it.

My point was that you offered only 2 options in comments below regarding a single mother trying to take care of her children, and neither would seem to change the pattern you are referring to. The third option is to use the federal funding to educate yourself by taking classes, to pay for childcare while you are at school or work, or any other number of options. This has been done by many single mothers and I am always impressed by those who "change the pattern".

Further, I certainly didn't mean to imply that the government should cut this funding... in fact I stated that I was in favor of it. However, when it is apparent that the money is not being used for the reason it was offered, then either it is not needed and/or restrictions need to be put in place so that it MUST be used as intended. I hate to even think it, but unfortunately "learning" how to take advantage of government programs becomes the worst enemy of a culture that needs to "change the pattern".

Among the problems we face is a deincentivization of obtaining decent work for single moms (insert stripper joke here). Put yourself in one's shoes. You're a 23 year old mother of two young children, not yet old enough to be in preschool. You can't afford childcare and putting together a patchwork of babysitters is difficult and inconsistent at best. Do you: A) Get a minimum wage job at 32 hours a week, significantly reducing your ability to provide for your children and cutting back or eliminating your welfare amounts and most importantly jeopardizing Medicaid benefits, or do you B) maintain welfare status so you can ensure medical coverage for yourself and your family knowing you can scrape together what you need on a month to month basis, though you have no ability to save?
 
#6
#6
That's the way it should be. IMO the primary role of a mother of young children absent a father should be being a good mother, not a wage-earner.

This sort of tracking needs to be in place, but the premise of cutting everybody off because a handful of people are abusing the system is ridiculous. It's the exact equivalent of Gibbs wanting to axe capitalism because a few dudes on Wall Street ride the bubble while the rest of us pay for it.

This. This. This. This. This!

It's more than a handful of people, though. There needs to be a lot more regulations on welfare.
 
#7
#7
There does need to be. And tmwrk, getting a college education still provides a major number of obstacles to those coming off TANF. A reduction or elimination of non-cash benefits accompanies this. I recently got my girlfriend to re-enroll in college for the first time in years, and she was served a notice of eviction from her low income apartment and had her EBT cut by a bunch. Same goes for anybody who decides to go back to school.

This is merely an exchange of benefits for a mountain of debt acquired post-graduation, the amount of cash (which are frequently PELL grants and federally subsidized loans anyways) can easily be smaller after tuition.

The bottom line here is not that most TANF recipients are in a cycle of dependence. It's that most who are on it have to take serious, serious risks to either get work or go back to school. The system has nearly always been that way.

I believe that most people on TANF will eventually find a way off if you show them the way. Meager benefits and punitive action preventing work and serious education is not the way.
 
#9
#9
For those in government looking for places to cut spending, it seems this would be a good place to start. The sad thing is this is an area that should receive support, but it completely blows my mind that with today's technology the government doesn't restrict how this money is spent. Complete negligence imo.

Welfare Money Spent On Luxury Items - News Story - WSB Atlanta

California had the same problem last year. People were using their cards at casinos. Was so bad that gamblers stopped going after the 1st of the month. Blows my mind that no one figured it out till NPR reported it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#10
#10
That's the way it should be. IMO the primary role of a mother of young children absent a father should be being a good mother, not a wage-earner.

This sort of tracking needs to be in place, but the premise of cutting everybody off because a handful of people are abusing the system is ridiculous. It's the exact equivalent of Gibbs wanting to axe capitalism because a few dudes on Wall Street ride the bubble while the rest of us pay for it.

you don't think this encourages young women in the inner city to get pregnant? we need to support these girls because you have some 50s idea of the women staying home with the kids?
 
#11
#11
That's the way it should be. IMO the primary role of a mother of young children absent a father should be being a good mother, not a wage-earner.

Careful now - this could be considered a sexist comment

This sort of tracking needs to be in place, but the premise of cutting everybody off because a handful of people are abusing the system is ridiculous. It's the exact equivalent of Gibbs wanting to axe capitalism because a few dudes on Wall Street ride the bubble while the rest of us pay for it.

I keep seeing the "cut everyone off" and "end programs or cut (remove) programs". Honestly I don't think these things are being proposed at all. However, if adjustments or changes or restructuring efforts are cast in this "cut everyone off" light then we can never have a real discussion about how we can address the problems.
 
#12
#12
you don't think this encourages young women in the inner city to get pregnant? we need to support these girls because you have some 50s idea of the women staying home with the kids?

ironically if you look at the single parent rate then it is amazingly low - now, we are advocating that the government play the role of the "wage-earner". I can assure you that will not break any cycle.
 
#13
#13
i'll post what i posted in the other thread:

when my wife was a teacher in the inner city she'd consistantly hear her students talking about getting pregnant so that they could move out of the house and get their own place.
 
#14
#14
My wife was a social worker for 5 years. About 25-30% (estimating high) used their benefits as a way to bridge a gap or as intended. The rest were content to collect a check.

Knew a lady with 4 kids who went to community college for 21+ years. She turned down several jobs cause she made more money on the governments dime.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#17
#17
My pie in the sky dream. If you are on government aid, you can't buy alcohol, tobacco or lottery.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#18
#18
That's the way it should be. IMO the primary role of a mother of young children absent a father should be being a good mother, not a wage-earner.....

Seriously?!? The government’s role should be to take money, that you have earned with your hard work, away from you and your family and give it to a girl/woman who decided to have a baby (ies) she could not afford?
 
#19
#19
Seriously?!? The government’s role should be to take money, that you have earned with your hard work, away from you and your family and give it to a girl/woman who decided to have a baby (ies) she could not afford?

and this same women's kids are going to benefit oh so much from her staying home. . .
 
#20
#20
Welfare reform should include some type of job training as well. That way, we aren't just paying a lot of people to sit on their asses and draw. I would make it to where they would still get some help, even if they hold a full-time job, if they don't reach a certain level of income.
 
#21
#21
makes you wonder how we survived as a nation before taxpayer funded social safety nets were put in place
 
#22
#22
I keep seeing the "cut everyone off" and "end programs or cut (remove) programs". Honestly I don't think these things are being proposed at all. However, if adjustments or changes or restructuring efforts are cast in this "cut everyone off" light then we can never have a real discussion about how we can address the problems.
The problem is that TANF amounts in many states aren't enough to live on, let alone climb out of poverty. Then if they do actually get work, it's usually of the variety that's going to have them worse off than if they were on TANF. Their other option is to gain extra income and not report it, which is fraudulent.

you don't think this encourages young women in the inner city to get pregnant? we need to support these girls because you have some 50s idea of the women staying home with the kids?
I said primary. If I meant the sole role of the single mother should be child rearing, I would have said sole. But I said primary, which means something different. I mean what I say.

Show me the single mother who puts her work in front of raising her children, I'll show you some kids who are likely to end up in foster care or truant or a criminal.

That said, I whole-heartedly support supplanting volunteer hours for those on TANF who aren't in a position to find employment.

makes you wonder how we survived as a nation before taxpayer funded social safety nets were put in place
Well, in the late 19th century, government became concerned that 5.3 million women were working for wages in jobs that men could potentially have, and the number of kids in orphanages or delinquents was skyrocketing. So the gov't came up with Mother's Pensions to give cash assistance, who was given mostly to white women, to care for themselves and their children and keep them out of the workplace.
 
#23
#23
Seriously?!? The government’s role should be to take money, that you have earned with your hard work, away from you and your family and give it to a girl/woman who decided to have a baby (ies) she could not afford?

So that's it, huh? Once a woman makes a bad choice to have a kid that she shouldn't have (because ALL TANF recipients are just poor decision-makers), and that's it? "Sorry kid, your mom screwed up so you're screwed too! Good luck!"
 
#24
#24
Welfare reform should include some type of job training as well. That way, we aren't just paying a lot of people to sit on their asses and draw. I would make it to where they would still get some help, even if they hold a full-time job, if they don't reach a certain level of income.

There needs to be a time limit. In VA if you are unemployed or on welfare for a certain length of time, your case worker can recommend you have an employment barrier. The state will pay for job training in another field. Nursing, truck driving, computers etc.

Need a sitter while you went to school? State will pay for it. Need help studying for licensing or certification exam? Case worker will help with practice tests. Afraid of the application process? Case worker will help you with your resume and conduct mock interviews. Need transportation? State will help you buy a car.

Every year my wife was required to make sure she used all of her funding. She would call her clients almost begging them to take the aid. It was amazing how many would turn it down because it required effort on their part and that they would eventually lose their free check and have to get a job.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#25
#25
Show me the single mother who puts her work in front of raising her children, I'll show you some kids who are likely to end up in foster care or truant or a criminal.

plenty of full time working women have children that don't end up in foster care or criminals. and anyway there is a fairly large difference between a career only woman and someone who doesn't work at all. surely a happy medium can be met to some degree.
 

VN Store



Back
Top