As a landlord I see most welfare cases have a man waiting in the car not on any paperwork.
It is clear the man is an actual occupant and household member. The welfare office office was lied to while they claimed only the woman was there with her low income. Almost every woman with her hand out for taxpayer money has this situation. Not all but most. The man is helping decide on the house, helping move furniture in, seems to always be in the house and answers the phone. How dumb must we be to put up with this? Ask a landlord. How many times showing a house to a welfare case is there a man lingering in the background? Do some surprise house visits to see how many people not claimed in the welfare application are living in government financed rentals. They always say they are visiting or babysitting. How come non welfare cases don't always have grown men who supposedly don't live there hanging around babysitting?
anonymous
shared this idea
8 comments
-
Brenda Zacheaus
commented
Why not put a tax on children born out of wedlock? They are several times more likely not to finish school, to enter the criminal justice system, and generally to cost society far more than they return.
-
Larry G
commented
Oddly enough, it is also these guys who are the primary abusers of children; biological fathers generally don't abuse their children. Gosh, maybe it would make sense to have some old fasioned values, here, and like have a stable home for children to grow up in. Whoops, not PC enough, I guess.
-
Keya
commented
wow you guys are Really really biased. I have a set of 13month old twins and no their dad does not live with me! I wont allow it, I want a Ring .the people you are talking about are the uncles the cousins the drug dealin boyfriends * who will be in jail in a few months time anyway.
My twins father has a criminal past and it is 10 yrs behind him. these guys who were stupid at one time are still getting punished for it. me I have no crimanal past I dont do drugs but as long as you land lords are getting your rent and the tenant is a good tenant let them people raise their kids. if its that bad call the housing authority. -
anonymous
commented
What you are describing is called "moral hazard" by insurance companies. When people feel safer, with insurance, they take more risks than they would otherwise. The problem you have is that poor people do not have a long term view. Long term views require hope for the future, and local "success stories" of people who succeeded. People who have no hope for the future, and no models for success, live in the moment, if only to survive. They really don't make rational choices, well get down to it, how many people do any more? Poor people are not going to stop having sex, much as you might like them to. Sexual morality, as we think of it, is really a middle class phenomenom. Neither the rich nor the poor restrict themselves much, usually. Taking your point out to its logical conclusion, I suppose you could sell hunting licenses on poor people. In Columbia, the rich can kill street kids, who are sort of like feral cats or dogs in some ways, with hunting weapons, at will. Is that the kind of society you want to live in? Given the Walmartization of America, perhaps that is what the corporations want. Quiet neglect, i.e. letting people die of exposure out in the open, isn't a whole lot nicer than blowing them away. We really need a George Carlin treatment of this. Why not simply have a game show, where 99% of the players lose, and are boiled alive, on prime time television? And the remaining 1% can live in a fairly nice community, with good schools, and opportunities. We really aren't making good use of our human resources. I have a Modest Proposal. Why not simply skin poor people, tan their skins, and make nice leather goods? This would be a great way for some people to get jobs. There is a shortage of good fertilizer, and their bones could be used for that. As far as flesh goes, well, a whole new industry could grow up, around the best cuts of meat from poor people, good recipes- this could be a whole new Green industry. A Soylent Green industry. Since we'll never house all the Baby Boomer elderly, this could be a quiet way to take care of that problem, as well. We can set up pilot projects now in the larger cities. Now that funeral homes are corporate mafia, funeral and burial is like a minimum $5K, think of all the money that would be saved in this way. The money from hunting licenses could be plowed into breeding stock, just as it is now with other game animals. Poor people certainly don't see much morality from the corporate people who control and delimit their lives, so we certainly aren't going to see much change there.
-
REINVESTOR
commented
Stop making it so easy to get the hand outs. Example: 3 kids and the mom for some reason just does not know who the dad is? If you want more housing to available, get rid of those who abuse it. All these laws and no bite!
-
resrat
commented
The woman is married to the government. The man is just someone she is cheating with. The government gives her all she needs, why should she look anywhere else? It's not a bad deal, you can sit all day watching the stories on TV, no need to like teach children anything or help them with homework, eat at Burger Thing or McDougals. No need to work.
-
anon
commented
Another thing that really burns observers is seeing drug dealers as that invisible man. They did finally change the law to allow eviction of those people, but why did it take so long?
-
anon
commented
It is far more cost effective for women at the lower end of the economic spectrum to marry the government. The government gives out housing, food, money, free bus passes, cost of living increases, and is generally a much better provider. Years ago, I knew a guy who went out with what were then called ADC women. He was in shock over the incredible deal they got. They are simply following the more incentivized path. They might keep a man around, but not usually in any kind of committed relationship. Why should they? The government is a far more reliable supporter. I was so amused a few years ago, when feminists were fighting welfare reform saying unmarried single mothers should be able to stay home and raise children. Taxpayers have no problem with that; what they had and have a major burn about is having to pay for it. Taxpayers pay for their own children, and also for those of others who don't seem, at least to their perception, to work for their money. One sees T-shirts like "Keep working- millions on welfare depend on you." My state has high state welfare, which means people migrate into the state to get on it. The state even sends checks out of state, which means people can get on welfare here, and then go back to a state with cheaper living costs, and live off this state's tax money. At the time of the French revolution, there were already families that had been on the state dole for 5 generations. Furthermore, welfare was designed to keep people dependent. Until recently, they would cut off a welfare mother completely if she went to school to learn a job skill. Taxation is mandatory, but it gives taxpayers a major burn, and they vent it on others, which is one reason people are growing increasingly uncivil and disrespectful of others.
