Talk:Aid to Families with Dependent Children

message: There are a number of incorrect claims in this article. Data show that non-White children were eligible at much higher rates and enrolled at higher rates than White children. The claims about White vs Black female labor force participation are also incorrect. From 1940-1960 the labor force participation rate of Black single mothers was lower than that of White single mothers. 
Most recent economic research shows significant benefits to the health of beneficiants, along with increased labor market participation rates. In my opinion, all of the cited work is outdated in terms of methodology and consequently its conclusions.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.11.28.238 (talk) 04:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Article provides incorrect information

message: Why is there a pros and cons section with such heavy bias and opinion? This section should be removed.
All the highly partisan parts beginning with "Welfare reform is no longer controversial..." should be axed or seriously edited. Just because TNR says it don't make it so. Also other errors: "culture of poverty" is a highly controversial set of THEORIES put forward by conservative social scientists in the 1960s and 1970s, then adopted by Reagan-era conservatives. Also e.g., misleading to say someone could get benefits for "his whole life": since recipients had to be single parents of young children, no "lifetime" benefits were in the offing, and virtually all these single parents were women. It is OK to include partisan perspectives about welfare, but to simply quote the most conservative interpretation of the programs as if it were true and there were no debate is teribly misleading.
::If any editor has a reliable source that gives a different interpretation, it sould be provided so users can see the debate. Rjensen 19:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the person who complained about the pov. I've added a pov tag. I've also added a cleanup tag, since so much of the article is ungrammatical.--24.52.254.62 00:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pros and cons section

message: Attempted to remove POV issues. Changed heading "pros & Cons" to "Critisisms"
Identified New Republic as a conservative periodical and suggested subjectivity in their assessment
:Glad to see that such ID was removed, as TNR is generally agreed to be a liberal magazine. Smontg2 (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edited for grammar and POV 

message: I just removed this:
"Evidence for this claim can be found in the work of Charles Murray, who suggested that welfare causes dependency. He argued that as welfare benefits increased, the number of recipients also increased; this behavior, he said, was totally rational, because why work if one can receive benefits for a long period of time without having to? While this ideology drove policy, the data, is not entirely clear. States with the most generous welfare policies have the fewest recipients and vice versa. For instance, Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama have relatively restricted welfare policies; these states have higher rates of welfare recipients than Minnesota, Wisconsin, and other states with more liberal welfare policies. However, welfare policy is only part of these liberal states' diverse social programs, and the southern states face very different demographics and economic challenges.
In the 1960s through 1980s William Shockley argued with some support that AFDC and other similar programs tended to encourage childbirth, especially among less productive members of society, causing a reverse evolution (dysgenic effect), founded on the premises that: (A) there is a correlation between financial success and intelligence, and (B) that intelligence is hereditary. Shockley, whose initial fame came from his electronics designs, was abrasive and not a credible spokesman; however, he and others were influential in bringing recognition to their hypothesis among the public and Congress. The later work of Charles Murray, Richard J. Herrnstein, and others suggested possible merit to the theory of a dysgenic effect, however, without definitive proof. In the end, this argument, right or wrong, was among the stepping stones leading to the modification of AFDC toward TANF.
Part of the reason that welfare reform became so popular was because of changing views and demographics of welfare and poverty. In 1935, when the legislation was first enacted, the dominant view was that women should stay home for the benefit of their children; by the late 20th century (and probably due to the Women's Rights Movement of the 1970s), staying home with children was seen as a privilege and most mothers should have the obligation to work. Furthermore, in 1935, most of the single-mother beneficiaries of welfare were widows; by 1988, most of these women with children were either unmarried or divorced."
Names of writers or "the work of..." are not sources. This section makes numerous specific claims that need sources. Mdbrownmsw 19:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV edit 1/30/07 

message: "States with the most generous welfare policies have the fewest recipients and vice versa. For instance, Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama have relatively restricted welfare policies; these states have higher rates of welfare recipients than Minnesota, Wisconsin, and other states with more liberal welfare policies. However, welfare policy is only part of these liberal states' diverse social programs, and the southern states face very different demographics and economic challenges." --Kevin Murray 09:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested to be referenced or removed 

message: The link to outside source: Aid to Families with Dependent Children at HHS is no longer working. Thi smay be a valuable resource which should be fixed. Italic text
Here are some intersting writings the contributors here might read and we can bolster the WP: article. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Link 

message: Have any aid programs been instituted that fill the role of AFDC policies?  For example, are there aid programs that provided more income to women who have more children?  Are there any that require that a man or father not be present in the home?  Are there programs that re-institute the policies for which AFDC was criticized?  Maybe the article would be improved by a section showing the legacy or ongoing context of AFDC.CountMacula (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which of the policies of AFDC still survive? 

message: Criticism section: Should be removed or re-labeled. Charles Murray and these various theorists of "dependency" are highly ideological and not grounded in fact. Put bluntly, Murray is a right-wing race scientist. Moreover, why should criticism of welfare reflect conservative criticism, versus the views of welfare mothers, who often criticized the program for not going far enough.
Reform section: The New Republic declares welfare reform a success. So what? They are a neoliberal magazine, very supportive of Bill Clinton's various austerity measures. Of course they would say that. TNR has a long history of racism, including helping stir fervor about crack babies. The article certainly should not give them the last word--ending with a quote from them seems unprofessional.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.92.43 (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article still seems extremely racist 

message: As some have already argued. The Criticism section should be removed for its use of blatantly ideologues with openly dishonest agendas. The data section seems to accept that the criticism has some merit without actually providing data. Though all arguments for everything has unclear data until proven, like the existence of fairies. Though the entire premise is so childishly wrong from a real world economics standpoint that it shows great dishonesty on the part of the editors(or great delusion) to include it. Welfare is provided because all members of society cant always provide labour market income. This is matematically impossible in an economy, especially a labour market one with inbuilt unemployment as a mechanism. As serious welfare economists have to point out to those with zero knowledge on the topics, like Right-Wing Economists. Welfare income is provided to those with a low attatchment to the labour market. Ie disabled, children, elderly and unemployed, etc. These groups have low labour income because they are not a part of the labour market. These factors might be interesting to note to anyone that want to understand basic economics. Is the fact that most groups often outside the labour market, exept children(which Murray wanted back into the work force)and the elderly, can't work(disability, unemployment). Or are not expected to work(children, exept in Libertarian ideology). Ie most people who can work and is not putting it of for studying or are of independent means already work. Or don't because the labour markets can not provide work. Or to put it bluntly, most people who can(and should) work already work, or have other life commitments. So the obious case of the reform was to force groups into the workplace that had other commitments, and to increase the poverty of those outside of the labour market altogheter, which had been a long time goal of almost all Right Wing politicians in the US by their own word. Any discussion need to be understood in that context.  There is mostly the matter of perspective one can bring up. That it is historically significant and therefore valuble to have. But as someone else have mentioned, only blatantly Right Wing Ideologues with pseudo-psychological assertions are treated as relevant. Instead of criticism from serious people invested in the utility of the program, and of course the end users of the program. Which one could easily compared to only allowing anti-vaxxers to comment on a critique of a medicine survey and not the professionals and end users themself.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akiosn (talk • contribs) 17:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libertarian Infantilism 

message: The "Man in the house rule" part needs to say that AFDC encouraged single mothers, fatherless homes and negatively affected families.
From https://nlihc.org/resource/study-examines-man-house-rules-voucher-program. "The rules sought to ensure only women with children, who at the time were expected not to work, benefitted from welfare. Households with an adult male were viewed as undeserving of assistance because adult males were expected to provide for their families through work. “Man in the house” rules, enforced through highly invasive inspections, forced many families to choose between maintaining welfare supports and keeping their families intact."
Paraphrasing the quote: The "Man in the house rule" promoted single parent mother headed families, mothers not to work and children to grow up without a father in the household." 2600:1700:D591:5F10:8D4A:449A:88E:A161 (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Man in the house rule - effects on families and promotion of single parent households 

message: By unreliable source, I miswrote. I just removed a widely discredited source that has been extensively documented for it's connections to white supremacists. GrandPeople44 (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most recent edit