From: bstring@mainz-emh2.army.mil (BOB STRINGFIELD)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: [THE GAR:  Re: Welfare]
Date: 18 Aug 1992 08:21:22 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

Well Carter?
--bob

************************
From:         THE GAR <GLWARNER%SAMFORD.BITNET@pucc.princeton.edu>
Subject:      Re: Welfare

On Fri, 14 Aug 1992 15:29:00 EDT Peter J. Schledorn said:
>An underlying assumption in your post is that the decline of the family
>is a cause of poverty.  Do you have any evidence that this is indeed the
>case?  Perhaps the causal relationship is in the opposite direction--
>poverty causes stresses that cause families to break up.

You correctly interpret my underlying assumption.  I attempted to
provide data of a broad enough range to show the likelihood of (although
I agree not to prove) my assumption.  If 52.4% of single heads of
household receive AFDC, and 52.6% of them were not married to start
with, at least 25% of those receiving AFDC did not have their family
broken because of poverty.  It is possible that further statistics
would illustrate that out-of-wedlock child rearing is more common
among the poor, but that line of thought would suggest the "welfare
trap" that was being denounced earlier.  It is definitely a concern
of mine.  The poverty stricken areas (which interestingly are balanced
between rural areas, like the Appalachians, and inner cities) need to
have radical reform.  I don't think welfare is the answer though.


While I can cite dozens of examples from my experience with inner-city
families where the daughters of welfare mothers have children who collect
welfare, I also know many middle-class women who were suddenly welfare-
eligible when their husbands left.  I would prefer statistics to personal
examples, and lacking the former, I will hold my peace on the latter.
Clinton's bus tour is great for finding one example and abusing it to push
his point even if it statistically invalid.  Bush and Reagan have done the
same.  Its a key to winning votes.  How much more moved are people by Bush
reading "I got a letter from a little girl the other day", or Clinton
saying "I spoke to an unemployed man at a bus stop the other day" than by
seeing a chart showing percentages.  Yet we need to base policy on the
numbers.  Not on the sob stories.  (As most of you know by now, I also
feel that we need to base policy on Biblical principles.  Wow, was that a
flame- invitation or what?  BTW, thanks for the notes of encouragement
from those who support what I say, and thanks to the more vile of my
flamers for having the decency to keep your profanity off the public
list).

>On a similar tack you say you can't blame plant closings on family
>breakup, but can you blame family breakup (at least in part) on plant
>closings?

An interesting thought.  I would doubt that a statistically significant
portion are directly related, but it could be.  Does anyone have
statistics?  I am trying to get some more current information from
Health & Human Services, and Labor Statistics, but I am not too experienced
in those areas of research, so bear with me.


 /++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++\
!  Later        +   Systems Programmer                                 !
!  Gary Warner  +   Samford University Computer Services               !
!               +   II TIMOTHY 2:15                                    !
 \+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++/

----- End of forwarded messages
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american