What percentage of recipients of aid from the program TANF are C150AASDFM's?

[Nym90]

As somebody that worked as a caseworker an innercity welfare and who had the richly earned streetname of The Devil Himself, the "Welfare Queen" sterotype was quite rare. 

The typical client was between 18-35, had one-two child, and "Daddy" was gone.  That probably counted for more than half of the clients.  Many had disabilities and could not work (they would often apply for SSI).

There were a few "professional clients" and numerous clients who got jobs and didn't report it (we'd find out through IRS records).   Here, we are talking about very low paying jobs that made them ineligible for cash.  This might, all things considered, have accounted for 10% of the recipients.

One client I interviewed was convicted of defrauding the state of over $100,000 by faking the custody of her children.   So it does happen.

Thanks for the insight J.J.

I don't think I've ever spoken to someone who was a real welfare case worker and it's always interesting to hear from one.

I thought that obviously this thread and the other liberal LLLE thread were jokes, but I saw less evidence than I expected that people 'got it'.

I have a hard time with the stereotype.  Working in one district, that was half African American in population, for five years, the typical client was a woman, Black, with one or two children.  Welfare queens do exist, basically  a woman that will hump anything, have eight kids by seven different men, and are both too stupid and/or too lazy to work.  They are the exception, not the rule. 

The typical client basically  has one thought on her mind, "How the hell did I get myself into this situation.  I really f*@%ed up my entire life."  It's not pleasant.  Even if she doesn't hate the caseworker (and most don't) she hates the situation.  I can't tell you how many times I've heard a client say, "I never thought I'd be here."

I think you raise some excellent points, J.J. The vast majority of people on welfare do not want to be there, and are highly ashamed of it. They sincerely want to get off of it. Even if it is their fault for getting themselves into the mess, they really are working to try to get out of it, and thus we most certainly should not just abandon them.

But welfare most certainly needs to be a temporary stopgap measure, and never a way of life. I supported the 1996 welfare reform for this reason; I think it was a good bill designed to curtail the abuses in the system while still keeping the basic safety net in place. At this point I would not support any further cuts.

[Nym90]

I think you raise some excellent points, J.J. The vast majority of people on welfare do not want to be there, and are highly ashamed of it.

It is foolish of them to feel ashamed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

'Fault' can never lie with the powerless, Nym90.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is convenient for their owners to abandon them as an example to the other workers.  On the other hand, giving them a meager pittance is a good way to feed the hubris of working class fools who think they are being harmed by this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why not?  Poverty and subjugation are a permanent way of life under the capitalist social heirarchy.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What basic 'safety net', Nym 90?  It has completely excluded all but women with very small children, and even forces them to 'work' within a very short time (I think just a few years) - which is of course ridiculous as they have children.  For example, workers such as you or I, being males of the non-paternal sort, would simply get nothing.

To a certain extent I agree that it is bad for people to feel shame, but it is also good that they feel a drive to be a productive member of society.

I disagree that poor people are powerless, though they are at a significant disadvantage compared to the wealthy. But it's not true that people can't climb the ladder of the social heirarchy, it is merely difficult. The law needs to ensure equal opportunity for success, but not equal outcomes.