From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Welfare myths (was: BOOK: Hollywood vs. America by Michael Medved)
Date: 4 Nov 92 20:11:21 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <1992Nov3.213856.9108@cs.ucla.edu>, reiher@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Peter Reiher) writes:
> In article <13042@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <1992Oct30.180050.22721@cs.ucla.edu>, reiher@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Peter Reiher) writes:
> >> In article <13002@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
# ## #But as you well know, the problem is that the illegitimate births
# ## #have a nasty habit of turning into AFDC caseload, because for every
# ## #mother like the fictional Murphy Brown, there are dozens who are
# ## #unwed teens, with no father present to help financially.
# ## 
# ## A recent study of the welfare system in Los Angeles county, which most
# ## probably view as a characteristic hotbed of welfare abuses, showed that
# ## only around 1/4 of all unwed mothers in the county are below the poverty
# ## line, let alone on welfare.  The majority of all unwed mothers either are 
# ## able to support themselves and their family, or are supported by their 
# ## relatives.  Of those who do spend some time on welfare, most do not stay 
# #
# #Was this intended as a response to my statement?  If so, it fails.
# #I specifically contrasted a six-figure income, well-educated journalist
# #with a single mother in desparate poverty.  The study you are describing 
# #is comparing those who are below the poverty line with those above
# #it, few of whom are six-figure income mothers.
# 
# Excuse me, I thought you were complaining about the vast number of unwed
# mothers who were on welfare.  It wasn't clear to me that you were making

I was complaining about the problems of single mothers trying to
raise kids by themselves.  You asked why anyone should care.  (A
very liberal attitude -- why should anyone care about people getting
screwed over?)  I pointed out (using "illegitimate births" as a
careless shorthand for single motherhood) that such births frequently
turn into AFDC caseload, something that we all pay for, both in
money, and damaged upbringing.

# a comparison about how many extremely wealthy unwed mothers there are 
# compared to how many extremely poor unwed mothers there are, a comment that 
# had little or no relevance to the first part of your sentence.  I wonder 
# if anyone else was confused the way I was?  At any rate, just to clarify
# my point for those who understood Mr. Cramer's odd point, let me state again 
# that 3/4 of all unwed mothers do not live below the poverty line.  Only 
# those below the poverty line are on welfare.  Not all those below the 
# poverty line are on welfare.  Therefore, 1/4 or less of all unwed mothers 
# in LA county are on welfare, and 3/4 or more of them are not.  That strongly 
# suggests that the majority of illegitimate births do not turn into AFDC 
# caseloads.  If that's not relevant to the statement that "the problem is
# that illegitimate births have a nasty habit of turning into AFDC caseload,"
# then perhaps we are working from drastically different ideas of the
# meaning of words and phrases.

You mean, "nasty habit" is the same "majority"?  Since when?  Cigarette
smoking has a nasty habit of turning into cancer, but that doesn't
mean a majority of smokers get cancer.

# #Also, you have not made it clear how many of these are single mothers,
# #and how many are simply unmarried.  If the father is present in the
# #home, taking care of his obligations, then the society as a whole 
# #doesn't get stuck with the bill.  
# 
# The figures don't say how many of these households have fathers supporting
# them, but each and every one is an illegitimate birth.  To quote your
# statement again, "the problem is that illegitimate births have a nasty 
# habit of turning into AFDC caseload."  These figures suggest that, no
# *that* isn't the problem.

No, it suggests nothing of the sort.  How many legitimate births
end up on AFDC?  Is it 1/4?

# ## Incidentally, teenaged parents make up only
# ## 2.6% of all the welfare cases in California, so we're not exactly being
# ## swamped by high school aged unwed mothers sponging off the system.  The
# #
# #But they grow up to be non-teenaged unwed mothers sponging off the
# #system -- or to be more precise, unwed mothers where the fathers
# #are sponging off the system, by not taking care of their obligations.
# 
# It certainly is the case that a majority of the people on welfare are
# children and their mothers.  This is a bad reflection on a sizable
# proportion of our male population, who are, indeed, shirking their
# responsibilities.  I make no defense for them.  But, given that they

We could fix that.  But liberals are reluctant to put responsiblity
on such fathers.

# are shirking their responsibilities, and the children are there, no
# matter what we do, I believe it's better to give them support to keep
# them from starving.

It's not a pleasant decision.  but in MY experience, AFDC assists
many fathers to avoid their responsibilities, along with funding
a lot of drug abuse.

# ## percentage of people on welfare has been rather steady over the past
# ## twenty years, ranging from 4.2 percent of the population to 5.2 percent.
# #
# #How about over the last 30 years?
# 
# The article I saw didn't show figures before 1970.  If you have some 
# reason to believe their was a great jump in the 1960's, that may well
# be true.  However, there has been no substantial fluctuation since then.
# Which suggests to me that, if something suddenly went wrong that caused
# people to flock to welfare (and it's only 5.2% who flocked, at most),
# it happened back then, not in the last 20 years.  That suggests that
# the state of society is fairly stable with regard to welfare, rather
# than being drastically worsening.  Of course, it would be nice were it
# dramatically improving, and perhaps working for stronger families would
# make that happen.

Exactly my point.  The problem got a lot worse in the 1960s.  Did
it get worse, and welfare was expanded in response?  Or was welfare
expanded, and the problem got a lot worse because there were no
disincentives to take advantage of the programs.  I would say,
based on what I have seen, that the latter is more true than the
former.

# ## The study is in contrast to the popular stereotype of huge
# ## numbers of entire families of children growing up from cradle to prison 
# ## (since, according to the stereotype, all welfare children are destined for 
# ## prison) totally supported by welfare.
# #
# #What stereotype is that?  I must have missed that in Stereotyping 101.
# 
# Here's a fine example of it, quoted from your response, above:
# 
# #In addition, a concern about single
# #mothers is that one of the correlations of criminality is the absence
# #of a father figure as the child is growing up.  The 1991 Uniform
# #Crime Reports has a focus report on juvenile offenders, and mentions
# #that 70% of juvenile offenders come from single-parent homes.
# 
# I'll admit a little hyperbole, and repent it - after all, since I'm the
# only person in this thread using hyperbole, I really should feel awfully
# guilty.  Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
# 
# 		Peter Reiher

"Single mothers" and "welfare families" are two sets, with 
substantial, though not complete intersection.  And while
most AFDC recipients tend to have short periods of relief, and
a few get off and stay off, there is a disturbing percentage,
perhaps as much as 30%, who are very close to the stereotype
you describe above.



-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
October is National Quality Month.  That's why we wait until the first
Tuesday in November for national elections.