quote:

Originally posted by jlokes:
Your forget, that everyone is against Iraq.


There is no reason that everyone is granted health care. People that take care of themselves and pay for health care should get health care.

There is a country you can deal with , it is called Canada.

This about Iraq...Is everyone against Iraq? What proof was there that Saddaam even had Weapons of Mass Destructions? Bush sent the U.S troops in to get the oil and occupy the land for Bush, not the U.S. Saaddam was one evil bastard, but you wanted Al Queda, they should have stayed in Afghanistan. OMG, how stupid can people be in believing what Bush did was "good"? He was only continuing his father's dream. Canada at least has some fucking health care and not as ass backwards as some of your fellow Whites...LOL

quote:

Originally posted by Willywill3:

quote:

Originally posted by jlokes:
Your forget, that everyone is against Iraq.


There is no reason that everyone is granted health care. People that take care of themselves and pay for health care should get health care.

There is a country you can deal with , it is called Canada.

This about Iraq...Is everyone against Iraq? What proof was there that Saddaam even had Weapons of Mass Destructions? Bush sent the U.S troops in to get the oil and occupy the land for Bush, not the U.S. Saaddam was one evil bastard, but you wanted Al Queda, they should have stayed in Afghanistan. OMG, how stupid can people be in believing what Bush did was "good"? He was only continuing his father's dream. Canada at least has some fucking health care and not as ass backwards as some of your fellow Whites...LOL

There was no proof, bush is a dick. Afghanistan/Pakistan was the way to go. Sadly i don't make policy.

quote:

Originally posted by jlokes:

quote:

Originally posted by Willywill3:

quote:

Originally posted by jlokes:
Your forget, that everyone is against Iraq.


There is no reason that everyone is granted health care. People that take care of themselves and pay for health care should get health care.

There is a country you can deal with , it is called Canada.

This about Iraq...Is everyone against Iraq? What proof was there that Saddaam even had Weapons of Mass Destructions? Bush sent the U.S troops in to get the oil and occupy the land for Bush, not the U.S. Saaddam was one evil bastard, but you wanted Al Queda, they should have stayed in Afghanistan. OMG, how stupid can people be in believing what Bush did was "good"? He was only continuing his father's dream. Canada at least has some fucking health care and not as ass backwards as some of your fellow Whites...LOL

There was no proof, bush is a dick. Afghanistan/Pakistan was the way to go. Sadly i don't make policy.

I'll say it again, the government can spend $2 billion in Iraq every 2 weeks, they can give proper health care...

quote:

Originally posted by Willywill3:

quote:

Originally posted by jlokes:

quote:

Originally posted by Willywill3:

quote:

Originally posted by jlokes:
Your forget, that everyone is against Iraq.


There is no reason that everyone is granted health care. People that take care of themselves and pay for health care should get health care.

There is a country you can deal with , it is called Canada.

This about Iraq...Is everyone against Iraq? What proof was there that Saddaam even had Weapons of Mass Destructions? Bush sent the U.S troops in to get the oil and occupy the land for Bush, not the U.S. Saaddam was one evil bastard, but you wanted Al Queda, they should have stayed in Afghanistan. OMG, how stupid can people be in believing what Bush did was "good"? He was only continuing his father's dream. Canada at least has some fucking health care and not as ass backwards as some of your fellow Whites...LOL

There was no proof, bush is a dick. Afghanistan/Pakistan was the way to go. Sadly i don't make policy.

I'll say it again, the government can spend $2 billion in Iraq every 2 weeks, they can give proper health care...

Thats fine if you want to pay for your fuckin concubine and shit, all i know is i don't what to pay for Jamaal's mother fuckin 3rd kid and shit.

Fuch him he did it, it is not my problem

quote:

Originally posted by jlokes:

quote:

Originally posted by Willywill3:

quote:

Originally posted by jlokes:

quote:

Originally posted by Willywill3:

quote:

Originally posted by jlokes:
Your forget, that everyone is against Iraq.


There is no reason that everyone is granted health care. People that take care of themselves and pay for health care should get health care.

There is a country you can deal with , it is called Canada.

This about Iraq...Is everyone against Iraq? What proof was there that Saddaam even had Weapons of Mass Destructions? Bush sent the U.S troops in to get the oil and occupy the land for Bush, not the U.S. Saaddam was one evil bastard, but you wanted Al Queda, they should have stayed in Afghanistan. OMG, how stupid can people be in believing what Bush did was "good"? He was only continuing his father's dream. Canada at least has some fucking health care and not as ass backwards as some of your fellow Whites...LOL

There was no proof, bush is a dick. Afghanistan/Pakistan was the way to go. Sadly i don't make policy.

I'll say it again, the government can spend $2 billion in Iraq every 2 weeks, they can give proper health care...

Thats fine if you want to pay for your fuckin concubine and shit, all i know is i don't what to pay for Jamaal's mother fuckin 3rd kid and shit.

Fuch him he did it, it is not my problem

Too cheap to do so? I have to pay for cousin Zeb to health care and I am fine with that...let everybody get it I say.

As usual, jlokes [as with all other disruptors] come to our house, posing as intellectual contributors; and when their half-baked, fully racist gets beat back, they devolve to their true anti-intellectual nature.

Out! Out damned spot!

quote:

Thats fine if you want to pay for your fuckin concubine and shit, all i know is i don't what to pay for Jamaal's mother fuckin 3rd kid and shit.

Fuch him he did it, it is not my problem

jlokes

Health care is a moral issue not a money issue.
We need a national health care plan, too many good people having to suffer because of not having proper access to health care. I do agree government have a very poor reputation regarding how it would manage health care but there are other ways to manage health care without government being terribly entangled in the system. I think BHO's approach is a good one in that it will mostly be kept private yet universal in nature. Those who can pay, pay, those who cannot will be subsidized but that Mexican border must be secured before any plan can be implemented.

We need smart and moral politicians that will make efficient policies with prompt service but as long as we have too many corrupt and self-serving politicians it will not matter what they touch it will be ran into the ground and us to the poor house.

quote:

Originally posted by jlokes:

quote:

Originally posted by Willywill3:

quote:

Originally posted by jlokes:

quote:

Originally posted by Willywill3:

quote:

Originally posted by jlokes:
Your forget, that everyone is against Iraq.


There is no reason that everyone is granted health care. People that take care of themselves and pay for health care should get health care.

There is a country you can deal with , it is called Canada.

This about Iraq...Is everyone against Iraq? What proof was there that Saddaam even had Weapons of Mass Destructions? Bush sent the U.S troops in to get the oil and occupy the land for Bush, not the U.S. Saaddam was one evil bastard, but you wanted Al Queda, they should have stayed in Afghanistan. OMG, how stupid can people be in believing what Bush did was "good"? He was only continuing his father's dream. Canada at least has some fucking health care and not as ass backwards as some of your fellow Whites...LOL

There was no proof, bush is a dick. Afghanistan/Pakistan was the way to go. Sadly i don't make policy.

I'll say it again, the government can spend $2 billion in Iraq every 2 weeks, they can give proper health care...

Thats fine if you want to pay for your fuckin concubine and shit, all i know is i don't what to pay for Jamaal's mother fuckin 3rd kid and shit.

Fuch him he did it, it is not my problem

Jamaal? A more likely scenario is we are all paying for Iva Nell and her 3 kids, billy bob, billy lee bob and billy joe bob, since white women receive the most welfare. Not to mention the number of mentally ill white people receiving crazy checks, and living in government supported institutions. White parents and their children invented the concept of getting a government check because the kid is autistic or attention deficit disorder. Not only that white adolescents take up tax dollars when they are sent to state run "oak tree village" type facilities for extensive mental health treatment for cutting themselves, killing people, doing drugs, and dating black boys.

After which they're still likely to be discharged and go shoot up the schools, cut up their parents, and kick homeless people to death.

Me, I'd like a refund for all the tax dollars which go toward the support of millions of crazy white people, while minorities have difficulty accessing healthcare and mental health treatment...


Seems like members of the majority culture would like to have all the educational slots to themselves but don't wanna bother educating themselves...

For educated but willfully ignorant majority culture members who don't realize they're talking about their own women and children when they're complaining about "handouts", "welfare", "personal responsibility", etc...

http://africanamerica.org/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/79160213/m/9641090534/p/1


From American Psychological Association;Women's Programs Office (apaonline.com)

Myths and Facts About Welfare

The general public views poverty as the result of personal failures and deficiencies. This perception rests on several myths. The most prevalent are that poverty results from a lack of responsibility; welfare leads to chronic dependency; African American women make up the largest group of welfare recipients; welfare promotes single parenthood and out-of-wedlock births; welfare provides a disincentive to work; welfare creates a "culture of poverty" because recipients share and hand down to their children a set of defective behaviors, values, and personality traits; and welfare funds extravagant spending by welfare recipients (Ehrenreich, 1987; Katz, 1989). These myths of pathology translate directly to the debate of who deserves help. They also fuel powerful stereotypical racial and gender messages. It is mothers, especially African American and single mothers, who are viewed as undeserving. Unwed mothers are thought to have the choice of marriage and do not obtain the sympathy that widows have. Other groups that are perceived as undeserving are immigrants, especially if they are not fluent in English.

Even the term "welfare" has been pejorative, and distortions of facts about welfare perpetuate myths about public assistance and those who receive it. These negative myths and stereotypes reinforced the government's agenda in cutting welfare spending to those recipients viewed as undeserving. Reform will continue to be ineffective if those implementing it do not separate myth from fact.

Strategies for alleviating poverty and decisions about government spending continue to be closely linked to the perceived causes of poverty, as well as the extent to which these causes are perceived to be modifiable (Furnham, 1982). Poverty is seen as an individual problem or a social issue (such as education or crime) rather than an economic issue (such as unemployment and the economy)(Gallup, 1992). Consequently, solutions are geared toward fixing or punishing those individuals with the "problem." Little attention is focused on societal factors that may perpetuate under- and unemployment, such as inadequate education, transportation, child care, and mental health problems.

Myth: Poverty Results From a Lack of Responsibility

Fact: Poverty Results From Low Wages:

Welfare programs have been our country's response to poverty, and everyone agrees that those programs have not solved the problem. Jared Bernstein (1996) of the Economic Policy Institute identifies wage decline as the crucial economic factor that has had the largest impact on poverty rates in the 1980s and 1990s. While hourly rates of pay have fallen for the majority of the workforce since the late 1970s, by far the largest losses have been for the lowest paid workers. According to Bernstein (1996), between 1979 and 1989, the male worker, for example, at the 10th percentile (meaning 90 percent of the male workforce earns more) saw his hourly wage decline 13 percent, and since 1989 he lost another 6 percent. For women workers at the 10th percentile, the decline over the 1980s was 18 percent. The low-wage female worker gained slightly since 1989, but by 1995, her hourly wage rate was $4.84, down from $5.82 in 1979 (all dollars are in 1995 inflation-adjusted terms).

Myth: A Huge Chunk of My Tax Dollars Supports Welfare Recipients

Fact: Welfare Costs 1 Percent of the Federal Budget

Widespread misperception about the extent of welfare exacerbate the problems of poverty. The actual cost of welfare programs-about 1 percent of the federal budget and 2 percent of state budgets (McLaughlin, 1997)-is proportionally less than generally believed. During the 104th Congress, more than 93 percent of the budget reductions in welfare entitlements came from programs for low-income people (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1996). Ironically, middle-class and wealthy Americans also receive "welfare" in the form of tax deductions for home mortgages, corporate and farm subsidies, capital gains tax limits, Social Security, Medicare, and a multitude of other tax benefits. Yet these types of assistance carry no stigma and are rarely considered "welfare" (Goodgame, 1993). Anti-welfare sentiment appears to be related to attitudes about class and widely shared and socially sanctioned stereotypes about the poor. Racism also fuels negative attitudes toward welfare programs (Quadagno, 1994).

Myth: People on Welfare Become Permanently Dependent on the Support

Fact: Movement off Welfare Rolls Is Frequent

A prevalent welfare myth is that women who received AFDC became permanently dependent on public assistance. Analyses indicate that 56 percent of AFDC support ended within 12 months, 70 percent within 24 months, and almost 85 percent within 4 years (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996). These exit rates clearly contradict the widespread myth that AFDC recipients wanted to remain on public assistance or that welfare dependency was permanent. Unfortunately, return rates were also high, with 45 percent of ex-recipients returning to AFDC within 1 year. Persons who were likely to use AFDC longer than the average time had less than 12 years of education, no recent work experience, were never married, had a child below age 3 or had three or more children, were Latina or African American, and were under age 24 (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996). These risk factors illustrate the importance of structural barriers, such as inadequate child care, racism, and lack of education.

Myth: Most Welfare Recipients Are African American Women

Fact: Most Welfare Recipients Are Children-Most Women on Welfare Are White

Children, not women, are the largest group of people receiving public assistance. Less than 5 million of the 14 million public assistance recipients are adults, and 90 percent of those adults are women (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1995). The majority of the recipients are White (38 percent), followed by 37 percent African Americans, and 25 percent other minority groups (Latinos, Native Americans, and Asian Americans) (McLaughlin, 1997). However, African Americans are disproportionately represented on public assistance because they are only 12 percent of the population (O'Hare, Pollard, Mann, & Kent, 1991).

Myth: Welfare Encourages Out-of- Wedlock Births and Large Families

Fact: The Average Welfare Family Is No Bigger Than the Average Nonwelfare Family

The belief that single women are promiscuous and have large families to receive increased benefits has no basis in extant research, and single-parent families are not only a phenomenon of the poor (McFate, 1995). In fact, the average family size of welfare recipients has decreased from four in 1969 to 2.8 in 1994 (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996). In 1994, 43 percent of welfare families consisted of one child, and 30 percent consisted of two children. Thus, the average welfare family is no larger than the average nonrecipient's family, and despite considerable public concern that welfare encourages out-of-wedlock births, a growing body of empirical evidence indicates that welfare benefits are not a significant incentive for childbearing (Wilcox, Robbennolt, O'Keeffe, & Pynchon, 1997).

Myth: Welfare Families Use Their Benefits to Fund Extravagance

Fact: Welfare Families Live Far Below the Poverty Line

The belief that welfare provides a disincentive to work by providing a well-paying "free ride" that enables recipients, stereotyped as "Cadillac queens," to purchase extravagant items with their benefits is another myth. In reality, recipients live considerably below the poverty threshold. Despite increased program spending, the average monthly family benefit, measured in 1995 dollars, fell from $713 in 1970 to $377 in 1995, a 47 percent drop. In 26 states, AFDC benefits alone fell 64 percent short of the 1996 poverty guidelines, and the addition of food stamps only reduced this gap to 35 percent (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996).

Despite the ready availability of facts, myths about welfare continue to be widespread. The media contributes to this lack of information. The media helps shape public perceptions about welfare recipients. The way in which a topic is reported can turn a neutral reader into an opinionated reader and can greatly influence public opinion. Although in an analysis of articles published in 10 major newspapers from January 1997 to April 1997, the tone was generally sympathetic to the poor, actual research and facts to counter myths were generally lacking (Wyche & Mattern, 1997).

Recommendations


1. Federal and state agencies should provide newspapers and other media with accurate information about welfare recipients and programs, including information on welfare reform.
2. Jobs need to pay better than welfare. Rather than focusing on welfare time limits, policy action at the state and federal levels must address reforming the low-wage labor market by raising wages and increasing the ability of low-wage workers to join unions and bargain collectively.
3. Public and private agencies should collaborate more effectively to promote and increase employment opportunities for women, especially of hard-to-place women.
4. States should provide training for case managers and other appropriate personnel to advocate for, support, and follow up with clients in ways that are not adversarial or punitive during their job search process.
5. States and federal agencies should fund and conduct research on the impact of the transition of mothers to work on the mother and the family and on what strategies best promote most positive outcomes for the mothers and their families.
6. States should require and fund formative and summative evaluations of proposed programs.