Missing the point…
June 25, 2008 by Laura | Trackback URI
A Brooklyn woman collected $370,000 in welfare benefits after claiming her husband abandoned her, even as he secretly paid for the children to attend religious schools, prosecutors said yesterday.
Okay, the stealing I can understand, although I obviously don’t approve. But religious schools? That, I don’t get. The article doesn’t mention the religion or how many and how old the children are.
She must have been on welfare a long time to accrue that much in benefits, unless huge chunks of it were medical benefits for a seriously ill child.
Rush Limbaugh says that we shouldn’t subsidize women for being single moms. I agree.
I generally agree, but I think it’s important to have some kind of safety net. I was on welfare for a short time, and I have MORE than repaid my debt to society. Had there not been a welfare system, including job training, available to me, I might not be a small business owner and net contributor to society today. So, yes, I agree that we should not pay people to sit on their duffs all day and make more babies, I’m in favor of spending tax dollars on certain programs for single mothers.
I think you are missing my point. I’m specifically talking about subsidizing singly-mommyness. It destroys families by giving the mom an incentive to kick the dad out.
I get your point, and I generally agree with it, but when you say, don’t subsidize women for being single moms, what exactly does that mean to you? I don’t want to make it a desirable lifestyle so that people will choose it lightly, but neither do I want to just tell those women, “You made a bad choice or something bad happened to you - tough, we’re not going to help you” because I know from my own experience that it is less expensive for society to help those women than it is to let them fend for themselves. And in an age of no fault divorces, how is the government to determine which mother’s is deserving of help and which isn’t? What I mean is - and I’m stumbling around it, I think - I generally agree with your sentiment but a good way to implement it escapes me.
They can collect child support and/or alimony, and if that doesn’t work, they can fend for themselves. If that doesn’t work, they can give the kid up for adoption.
Well, applying that standard to myself, when I was pregnant and I lost my first husband… couldn’t find a job because I was visibly pregnant, and didn’t qualify for unemployment or anything. I received welfare, social security survivor’s benefits, food stamps, and most importantly job training.
I should have given my daughter up for adoption? That seems quite heartless, Drew, do you really mean that? (”Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?”)
On the other hand, since I got that job training and found a decent job (as a secretary) when my daughter was four weeks old, I’ve built on that career to the point that I’m a small business owner who pays a whole lot of taxes, and has more than repaid the state’s investment in me.
Don’t you think it makes more sense to try to invest a little in people in order to get more out of them later as a productive member of society?
No, I don’t, because welfare has already destroyed most of the black community. Seventy years ago, black families were actually more stable than white families. Now look at them. Slavery did not destroy blacks; the Democrats did.
As far as husband dying (as opposed to leaving due to government subsidies of single moms), I guess I would question why your husband did not have any life insurance for you. In extreme circumstances, there are always private charities and churches available. When the government tries to improve things, all it does is destroy entire cultures.
I don’t know if you were in church at the time, but in fact, the Bible specifically tells churches to care for widows.
We didn’t have life insurance because we were 20 and 21 years old and like most people that age, it just never occurred to us. I was not saved then, we were not members of a church, and I was estranged from my family for reasons that most people would find ENTIRELY understandable.
I am not in favor of the old-style welfare system, and not especially in favor of the one we have now, which is at least improved but should be tightened WAY up. I’m just saying, the system can and often DOES work, and could be improved so it worked better. I guess it depends on what your goals are… I much prefer individual charities do the work, and I’d like to see initiatives to make that happen, but in the absence of that, I’d rather have government do it than nothing at all. It is better for society that I am where I am today.