That's been going on for decades.  It was first debated in the 60s because welfare breaks up homes.  E.g., if the parents are married and dad loses his job, mother and kids cannot get welfare as long as he lives in the house.  Thus, instead of giving assistance to stabilize the family, the father had to leave the home, further destabilizing the family.  This was basically what started the trend of single family homes in minority communities.

As a legal matter, I could have predicted that it would be loser because it's not a search and there's a compeling state interest, i.e., combating welfare fraud.  Whether it's effective is a different issue.

headkicker_girl wrote:

...it's not a search and there's a compeling state interest, i.e., combating welfare fraud. Whether it's effective is a different issue.

Obviously, this is an astute assessment.

headkicker_girl wrote:

...welfare breaks up homes. E.g., if the parents are married and dad loses his job, mother and kids cannot get welfare as long as he lives in the house. Thus, instead of giving assistance to stabilize the family, the father had to leave the home, further destabilizing the family. This was basically what started the trend of single family homes in minority communities.

This one, I'm not so sure about.

I think it over-simplifies a number of socioeconomic factors; possibly, that it's just too focused on a particular situation, one we have stereotyped for minority families, but which affects "white households" on a greater, per capita basis...if for no other reason than they're [still] the majority population (even if blacks, latinos, et al. receive a disproportionate amount of the welfare benefits). The same groups (minus the caucasians, now) are also over-represented in prisons, just so we can all see where this is going.

It's sort of a chicken/egg problem. Which came first, the husbands leaving the household to find work or make their families more eligible for benefits, or their departure due to other circumstances? The "trend" in single-parent households was bolstered by a greater than 50% divorce rate, and the coincidental downturn in public trust for recipients was spearheaded by Reagan[-omics] and "Welfare Queen" scandals during his tenure.

The problem these "inspections" seek to combat isn't exclusively American. I was appalled to discover just how many British teens were getting pregnant multiple times, dropping out of school, and existing handsomely--and legally--on hefty payments for each child, in addition to free housing, food, and childcare.

All that said, I still come down on the side of considering these walk-thrus invasive, and if they haven't resulted in any fraud prosecutions, then that isn't much to say for their efficacy. It's not that the poor abjure their rights, but that the State has decided to claim a new format for one it already had. I just can't understand why the usual warrantless record and credit searches don't suffice for them. BTW, people with dependents were almost always visited by social service reps to ascertain children's safety.

headkicker_girl wrote:

Of course the walk throughs are invasive.  They are meant to be.

You're also assuming these are by the book inspections. I interviewed 30 separate, Section 8 households at random for a related story and found NONE of them conformed to law. Legal aid, you say? Are you laughing yet?

Complain and the ever present 24/7 video cameras mysteriously malfunction, your door gets kicked and a roach falls to the floor.

That's enough to get you evicted and banned from public housing for life. Shit, I should never have started this. It's a nonstop horror show the middle class will never recognize until they're sharing the same gutter and it's way too late.

Last edited by choad (2007-11-27 17:50:22)

Dmtdust wrote:

Lots of money for corporate welfare though, and weapons.

Oh, look. It's the 532nd "Decline of the American Empire" article I've seen since January 2001. I usually enjoy TruthDig, but--tho I agree that shooting down childcare and education (no child can be left behind if they're ALL behind) in favor of more defense spending is a perennially perverted priority--the Look How Far We've Fallen recaps are getting tedious.

headkicker_girl wrote:

This is from the Moynihan Report of 1965... Of course, the better course of action is the track down the absent father and make him pay his share of child support...

Of course I'm familiar with the Moynihan Report. While progressive for its time, it's now antiquated crapola:

The report concluded that the structure of family life in the black community constituted a 'tangle of pathology...capable of perpetuating itself without assistance from the white world...' (source)

I still agree that time/money would be better spent tracking down deadbeat dads of any socioeconomic status, and not just leaving that sort of investigatory work to Maury and Jerry.

choad wrote:

You're also assuming these are by the book inspections... Shit, I should never have started this.

I doubt she is, but was never under any such impression. Welfare inspectors and social service caseworkers are over-loaded, under-paid, and their training is not commensurate with the problems they are expected to root out and resolve. Presently, the only "resolution" is to be unceremoniously booted off the dole for everything from minor infractions to clerical errors. After that, you're right. It's well nigh on impossible for a single mother to work, care for the kids, and fight the system at the same time.

While I don't think it's a bad thing that you started the thread, I might agree that the topic is a little out of the scope of High-Street. If you wanted to give the place a more conversational bent, then maybe it's time to start creating subforums for submissions instead of leaving them all in one uncategorized jumble. That way, people can do all the eyebleach, civic posturing, and offbeat news articles that they want without having to worry what goes where.

Without going in-depth on a subject that burns my ass, (from all perspectives)
I am reminded of an article I read many years ago.  A young black girl was asked what she wanted to do when she grew up.  She replied "I want to have babies and go on welfare..."  as if it were a career choice.  Though I can't quote the source, it has always stuck with me.  This "problem" is generational,  poverty AND public support.  The poor are unfortunately used (more so, recently) as fodder for our wars and as scapegoats to rationalize the outrageous economic disparity that is our culture.  Crack and heroin help in this pernicious and vile scheme.  Thanks to George I and the Cocaine Import Agency.... Keep 'em down and addicted, so they won't see the real culprits, and if they do, they'll be too dope-sick to do anything about it...  Now I'm going off the deep end.....

But, really, thanks Choad for posting a rather serious and volatile subject.  Maybe this will be a defining point for H.S. and set it apart from the remains of Cruel.com  I think P.'s last suggestion was worth consideration.

Lurker wrote:

But, really, thanks Choad for posting a rather serious and volatile subject.  Maybe this will be a defining point for H.S. and set it apart from the remains of Cruel.com  I think P.'s last suggestion was worth consideration.

Forgive me if I remind you, myself and everyone else here High-Street is a group effort that'll fall flat on its ass if it doesn't arrive at consensus before it makes any fundamental changes. I pushed hard for eyebleach labels when I got forceful reminders that failing to do so would kill the site.

Personally, I don't want to see High-Street fracture into countless tiny affinity groups, entirely lose its focus and become impossible for any one person to track. If there's such an ugly beast as reverse branding, that is it. Homos in one place, straights in another, Fnord and his White Knights... No, I don't even want to imagine it.

I was a social worker myself a couple lifetimes ago at the very northern tip of Appalachia and I can trump horror stories from the shallow end of the gene pool with anyone alive. I can also sit here and insist we treat the poor like human garbage at our own peril. They deserve dignity and respect even if they don't earn it. Otherwise, it comes back to bite us all in the ass.

Last edited by choad (2007-11-27 20:06:38)

I couldn't have said it better myself, Fnord.

Destroy the entire system and rebuild from scratch. And thanks also for once again ignoring my ad hominem ridicule of your oft stated convictions.

Last edited by choad (2007-11-27 20:47:10)

asdf1971 wrote:

The no-fault divorce has more to do with the current increase in households headed by single mothers.  Together with women's increased entry into the work-force during the 1970s, it allowed married women with children to leave a bad situation if they had to, without needing to wait until they had an excuse, like battery. 

Welfare has its faults, but don't give welfare the perceived blame for recent trends toward increasing single-motherhood.

They don't have no fault divorces in New York, yet they have just as many single parent homes as any other state.  No fault divorce does not belong in this discussion.

headkicker_girl wrote:

No fault divorce does not belong in this discussion.

I agree but you've bucked the co-dependent norm better than any other single parent I can remember,  so would you mind addressing that part of the equation?

choad wrote:

I agree but you've bucked the co-dependent norm better than any other single parent I can remember,  so would you mind addressing that part of the equation?

1.  First husband is a doctor, so he could afford to pay child support and did.  I didn't have children with someone who couldn't afford them.

2.  I got remarried to someone who is stable and gainfully employed (11 years and counting)...I didn't try to raise my son alone. 

3.  I was a single parent for about 2 years, but my son had contact with his father during that time and I never said anything bad about him to my son even though he was trying my patience.

My advice to single moms, based on my days as a divorce attorney, would be a whole new thread.

Pale Wrote:

"Oh, look. It's the 532nd "Decline of the American Empire" article I've seen since January 2001. I usually enjoy TruthDig, but--tho I agree that shooting down childcare and education (no child can be left behind if they're ALL behind) in favor of more defense spending is a perennially perverted priority--the Look How Far We've Fallen recaps are getting tedious."


Oh Fuck You.  It needs to be brought up. 


Thank You, Asswipe.


Yer Pal,

Dusty

Emmeran wrote:

choad wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

DRUDGE DRUDGE DRUDGE

Such wit! Such wisdom! Such squandered bandwidth! And ordinarily, I'd agree but give it a rest and let us regroup. Or STFU and post something better.

Actually I was childishly quoting from a thread I posted along this nature  =)

Personally, I never did mind such items being posted on Cruel on occasion.  It only became annoying to me when Foot-In-Mouth began posting up to ten stories from Faux "News" per day (Which, as I recall, was the motivator behind the three post limit).  I'm glad that Choad posted this on High-Street, or I'd have likely never seen it.

Last edited by Decadence (2007-11-28 00:15:24)