Well?

[Lady Sidhe]

Originally posted by ladysycamore


Hm...ok. I guess my questions would be: what kind of counselors would be helping these couples? Would it be "faith based" and unbiased? If the focus will be on low income families, will there be adequate funding to assist them in their financial needs?

PLus, I just don't completely believe this will be only for those who are already married or are thinking about it. I feel it's a precursor for those of us who are not married (yet), or for those who do not want to be married, no matter what. Some people are just.not.marriage.material, and to try to convince those people otherwise, IMO, is wrong (just like society tries to convince people to procreate...not everyone is cut out to be parents).

So, that's my take on it.

I haven't been able to find out whether or not the would be "faith based" counselors or not.

And all I'm doing is reporting what I read insofar as who the counseling is to be meant for (those who are married, thinking of being married, and low-income). From what they said, they're not going to try to convince people to get married. Supposedly it's aimed at those groups who are low-income/married, low-income/thinking of getting married only.

And I definitely agree with the idea that not everyone is cut out to be parents...take a girl my best friend knows:
She's a crack and meth addict who spends most of her time in jail (she's in jail now, and pregnant); two of her children died due to complications from the drugs she abused while pregnant (one died in utero, the other after birth). She has five boys, none of which she has custody of, and said she was going to KEEP having babies until she had a girl.
Well, the one she's pregnant with now is a girl, and the doctors say that it will probably die also, because she used drugs until she got busted and sent to jail a few months ago (she's pretty well along). IMO, this girl, and people like her, should be sterilized.

A friend of mine was a crack baby, and she's had many health problems over the years. She also cannot have children of her own due to female complications from her birth mother's (she was adopted as a baby) crack use.


Sidhe

[wolf]

I find it frightening that "crack babies" are now old enough to be having babies.

I remember when crack was new ...

[Lady Sidhe]

Yeah, me too... I personally don't understand why people would want to do something that makes them speed...doesn't cocaine speed you up, among other things?

I mean, I can understand weed, it relaxes you and makes you all giggly...I can understand acid, it gives you interesting perspectives; but things like cocaine/crack, speed, and meth that make you bounce off walls, or heroin, which I'm told makes you sick as a dog the first time you do it, and downs you so much that you're almost unconscious....I just don't get it...

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
I haven't been able to find out whether or not the would be "faith based" counselors or not.

And all I'm doing is reporting what I read insofar as who the counseling is to be meant for (those who are married, thinking of being married, and low-income). From what they said, they're not going to try to convince people to get married. Supposedly it's aimed at those groups who are low-income/married, low-income/thinking of getting married only.

Ah, "supposedly" being the operative word here.

[Lady Sidhe]

That's what they said in the article...that the plan was aimed towards low-income couples who were already married or who were engaged to be married.

Sidhe

[Lady Sidhe]

Here's the latest info I've been able to dig up, pro and con...just a couple of articles, but enough to give the general idea:

From CNBC:
Report: Bush backs $1.5 billion marriage plan
Initiative to promote nuptials among low-income couples
Updated: 7:26 a.m. ET Jan. 14, 2004

NEW YORK - Bush administration officials are planning a $1.5 billion election-year initiative to promote marriage, especially among low-income couples, the New York Times reported on Wednesday.

The plan would provide at least $1.5 billion for training to help couples develop interpersonal skills that sustain “healthy marriages,” the paper said.




From FoxNews.com
Bush Welfare Marriage Plan Sailing Through Congress
Thursday, July 17, 2003

WASHINGTON — President Bush's proposal to nudge women on welfare toward the altar is headed for approval in Congress despite opposition from both the political left and right, as Democrats choose other battles to fight in the welfare debate.


From the start, the plan sparked outrage from libertarians who complain government has no place in people's intimate lives and from feminists who worry women will be coerced into bad matches. Both say scarce dollars should be spent elsewhere.

Despite the concerns, Republicans are largely in favor of the plan and Democrats are largely resigned to it.

The debate has been ongoing over the last year and a half as Congress works to renew its landmark 1996 welfare overhaul. The renewal gives lawmakers and the White House an opportunity to make changes in the program, and Bush has made promoting marriage one of the centerpieces of his plan.

The House has already passed its welfare legislation, which includes the marriage initiative. The Senate Finance Committee plans to consider the matter next week. An initial proposal from Chairman Charles Grassley included the marriage money, and he said Thursday that Democrats have not pushed him to remove it.

In a letter to Grassley last week, 41 Democrats laid out their priorities in the welfare debate, including more money for child care, reasonable work requirements and benefits for legal immigrants. They didn't mention the marriage initiative.

Under the Bush marriage proposal, the government would spend $300 million per year on programs promoting marriage. That includes $200 million in federal dollars, and $100 million states would have to spend in matching funds. The administration is vague about what the money would go for, but says it would help couples that are already interested in marriage, perhaps through financial incentives or by offering counseling.

Supporters say children are better off when they are raised together by a mother and father, and poor families are better off with two wage earners.

"The fact of the matter is, marriage is a very important tool for economic survival," said Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa. "When you have two people in a family it makes it easier." Grassley said promoting marriage is "just a no-brainer."

Opponents say it's no such thing.

Michael Tanner of the libertarian Cato Institute says there's no evidence these programs will work and argues there are too few "marriageable men" out there anyway.

"It's not like there's a doctor or an accountant down the street waiting to marry an unwed teenage mother," Tanner said Thursday before a news conference with feminists and others to denounce the initiative.

Women's groups worry that women will wind up coerced into bad, possibly abusive relationships. "The government has no business being involved in personal issues like marriage," said Lisalyn Jacobs of the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund (search).

Democratic aides say some Democratic senators are sensitive to these concerns but have not made the issue a priority, focusing instead on trying to get more money for child care and other concerns. At the same time, some moderates are comfortable with the program, willing to experiment and see if pro-marriage programs work.

Sen. Max Baucus, the top Democrat on the Finance Committee, opposes the initiative along libertarian grounds, reflecting his Montana roots, but he's one of the few who has spoken out against it.

Last year, when Democrats ran the Senate, Baucus crafted a bill that included money for experiments promoting marriage but also allowed it to be used for teen pregnancy prevention and other programs, a change the Bush administration denounced.


Sidhe

[ladysycamore]

[quote]from article
From the start, the plan sparked outrage from libertarians who complain government has no place in people's intimate lives and from feminists who worry women will be coerced into bad matches. Both say scarce dollars should be spent elsewhere./quote]

Totally agree with that. It's mindblowing how wasteful our government can be sometimes.

[Lady Sidhe]

--------------------------
"The debate has been ongoing over the last year and a half as Congress works to renew its landmark 1996 welfare overhaul. "

---------------------------


Now, I have to say, I do agree with welfare overhaul. I think it's disgraceful that people live on welfare and teach their children to do the same.

Don't get me wrong...I'm not opposed to welfare. There are people out there who need it. That's who it's for. It's not for people who are too damned lazy to get off their asses and work for a living. I resent the fact that I have to pay for people who are too lazy to work. All of us do. Welfare is there for people who are working but can't make ends meet...or people who are looking for work but can't find it. People who live on it, and teach their kids to live on it, give people who legitimately need it a bad name.

Here in Louisiana, I believe they've put a five-year limit on welfare. You get five years, period. Whether they're together or spaced out. That makes sense. It seems to me that if you CAN work, you should have pride enough to do so. Now there are people that work their asses off at pissant jobs and still can't buy grocieries....those are the people welfare was meant for.

I remember reading a "Dear Abbey" letter...it was from a woman in response to a caustic letter about welfare recipiants. She said that she had a job, but got laid off, and she also had a child. She had to go on welfare. She said, "if anyone's willing to give me a job, I'm willing to take it." That's what I like to see....people who have pride in themselves. There's nothing wrong with going on welfare if you need it....but damn...if you're able-bodied, have some pride and get out there and get a job!!


I guess that's just me. I have a lot of pride. Maybe that's not always a good thing. But it is a good thing when it comes to teaching my daughter life skills. Do what you have to do, within reason, to live. No job is too menial, or beneath you, when it comes to standing on your own two feet as much as possible. There's nothing wrong with getting help when you need it; anyone can hit a rough spot...it's what you do when you hit that rough spot that defines your character. Getting needed help is one thing. Being a parasite is something completely different.

I know this is kinda off the subject, but the subject seems to have died....


Sidhe

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
Don't get me wrong...I'm not opposed to welfare. There are people out there who need it. That's who it's for. It's not for people who are too damned lazy to get off their asses and work for a living. I resent the fact that I have to pay for people who are too lazy to work. All of us do. Welfare is there for people who are working but can't make ends meet...or people who are looking for work but can't find it. People who live on it, and teach their kids to live on it, give people who legitimately need it a bad name.

While I agree, the problem is that people don't always know which ones are the ones who are abusing the system (unless you actually know someone or know of someone's situation first hand). Reform and overhauling is fine, but IMO, it can put people who really need the help in a possible bind.

]

[Lady Sidhe]

Originally posted by ladysycamore


While I agree, the problem is that people don't always know which ones are the ones who are abusing the system (unless you actually know someone or know of someone's situation first hand). Reform and overhauling is fine, but IMO, it can put people who really need the help in a possible bind.

]

That's why I think a five-year-limit is a good start. It shouldn't take five years to find a job. I know that sometimes it can take up to a year to find a job if the market is bad, but five years....naah.

Unless they actually had people going to recipiants' homes to monitor them, I don't think there's really any way to know for sure if someone is abusing the system. Although in La., you're required to look for work if you get public assistance, and you have to bring at least 5 applications to their office a week to prove it. If a job comes up that you can take, you're required to take it. You don't get cut off if you do, although the assistance may be reduced depending on how much the job pays. I think it's at least a good start.

There's nothing wrong with trying to get people to stand on their own feet. It instills pride to know that you can take care of yourself...at least I'd think it would. It does for me. I believe that people who truly DO want to take control of their lives won't protest welfare reform. They don't intend to be on it forever, so they don't have a problem with it. So long as it's there when the people who need it need it... That's why it exists.

Sidhe