Welfare rules discourage marriage, Brownback says

[proud2BlibKansan]

TOPEKA | Kansas Gov.-elect Sam Brownback wants to change rules for state social service programs that he says discourage marriage.

At a news conference Monday, the Republican promised to push for policies allowing people who participate in social-service programs to keep their benefits if they get married.

Brownback said that under current rules, people lose their benefits because getting married increases their household income just enough to disqualify them.

Brownback later acknowledged that changing the rules could cost the state more money, but he said the state will save money in the long run if more of children are raised in healthy families.



Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/01/03/2558302/kansas-welfare-rules-discourage.html#ixzz1A1b8VTxz

What is even more interesting are the comments from the wingnuts who likely voted for Brownback. Looks like some turmoil on the right. LOL

Let me get this straight: a) Kansas is facing a $500 million budget shortfall this year and b) we just had an election where the predominant message from voters was for governments to rein in spending. So, our new governor is proposing an *increase in spending* on a *welfare* program based on the the unfounded notion that children whose parents are married magically cost the state less than children with unmarried parents. Naive? Yes. Fiscally responsible? No.
*****************
used to wonder how men in the 'hood rolled Escalades, had on a new pair of $100 Nikes every week and rocked the gold and diamonds on $12.00/hr. I figured, they all can't be selling weed, right? Then I discovered that most of them stay with their baby momma, and get rent/food/utilities paid for by the taxpayers and the $12.00/hr that they make is straight play money because the rest of us pay the bills. I'm glad the good governor is going to allow them to make honest women out of their baby mommas.
*****************
i cannot wait to see all of these single 18 year old mothers run to the chapel to get married now that they can keep their benefits. to think all this time they could have been pursuing a stable home for their children but they chose to eschew every man just to keep their benefits. im sure thats why minority families have no father--- the mother told him to stay away from her kids so she can get financial help. makes a lot of sense. i guess it takes someone to back these stupid ideas for people like this to get elected!
****************
*smacks head*

*sigh*

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/01/03/2558302/kansas-welfare-rules-discourage.html#ixzz1A1cC8sVS

[HockeyMom]

1. What if the father is already married to somebody else?

What would they do in that situation?????? How about in prison? Or a drug addict? Getting married in these situations is the "cure" for welfare?

[madrchsod]

2. that`s a great idea..

i hope the rule is changed.

[xchrom]

5. Care to explain your thoughts further? Nt

[panader0]

8. There are already tax laws that (I think) make it

cheaper to live as a couple than be married. My friend lives with his GF and can't use her address because it would make her household income too high to receive benefits. There should be no penalties about benefits for being married.
Did I just agree with a repub? Sam will back off this position.

[proud2BlibKansan]

10. I think it's cheaper taxwise to be married

DH and I were told we owed more in taxes one year than we had paid. Turns out the IRS had mistakenly classified us as married filing separately. The difference was huge. I assume it would be similar if we were filing singly. :shrug:

[On the Road]

6. It's the Only Way I've Heard to Address the Issue

Marriage IS discouraged under the current rules -- a LOT.

[butterfly77]

3. Today, at the republicon..

meeting for chairman of the republiCON committee,on of the candidates said that they need to get rid of welfare and get some of those fathers back in the house.

I would like to know how they propose to do that. Did they try to get Newt Gingrich back into his houses when he left his wives?

[RKP5637]

4. I'm sure this covers 'the gays' too ...

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. Not in Kansas

Good point though.

[RKP5637]

12. Wasn't Brownback a big supporter of gay rights?

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

Can't stand him ...

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. Let's start a support group

He's an ass. But he pretends to be a good Christian so he gets away with it.

[RKP5637]

15. And with "C" Street too. Yep, he wears the veil of christianity

to mask his intentions ... I often wonder if Americans will ever wake up to those that wear a Christian mask.

[proud2BlibKansan]

17. We hammered that C Street crap during the election

But he still won.

This state is so fucked up.

[RKP5637]

19. It's like people wear bags over their heads that are impenetrable. n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

20. Yep. Check this out.

A convicted felon was elected to office. And he's facing NEW felony charges - for kissing a teenage boy on the mouth. :wtf:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=111789&mesg_id=111789

[RKP5637]

21. The Discovery Channel really needs to start a series about KS like

Palin's Alaska. In fact, I already have a name for it, "Kansas - WTF!"

It looks like it's gearing up for a new entertainment season in KS. I'll be sure to have lots of popcorn! :)

[proud2BlibKansan]

23. LOL too flat to be a good TV show

There are some rather gorgeous hills in central Kansas but they aren't anything as spectacular as the mountains in Alaska.

[DCKit]

7. Hate to tell you, but some of the comments are spot-on.

Here in the DC area, a fifteen year old girl with a kid used to get a two-bedroom townhouse on the gubmint dime (I'm living in an efficiency). They were having kids just to move into their own space. My experience with that is decades-old, so I won't claim to be an expert on what may be going on now.

However, one day at work, on a smoke-break, one of my co-workers was complaining about the lousy service she received from her property manager... she thought she should get far better service for the $15 (fifteen dollars) she was spending each month on her housing.

However, I will agree that public housing excludes males, and that's a serious conundrum. We're both excluding them (and leaving them on the street), and marginalizing them to the point that they can't live a life conducive to getting a job or even leading a normal life.

There is another side to this issue and, if we're all getting screwed, it needs to change.

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. Doesn't sound like we're "all" getting screwed

The woman paying only $15 a month rent is certainly not getting screwed. LOL

[alp227]

13. or maybe a lack of education discourages marriage

but noooooo...I doubt that Brownback will ever improve Kansas's education system anytime soon, because education-->critical thinking-->a collapse of the anti-intellectual capitalist infotainment monster known as American news media (especially Fox News) right? And I wonder if ignorant abstinence-only education is taught in Kansas. Meanwhile I see that some here (not disruptors) actually agree with Brownback's policy. Why is that?

And someone else brought up Gingrich. Interesting, maybe Brownback needs to have a stern man-to-man talk with him. Read up also about Donald Bren, a wealthy Republican real estate developer involved in child support disputes since his divorce. It's not just those poor lazy single mothers in the projects that the conservatives need to chase, maybe some greedy rich men too...

[Odin2005]

16. Yes, because good Christian women don't leave abusive husbands!

:eyes:

[proud2BlibKansan]

18. Not in Sam's world they don't

[Unvanguard]

22. I have no problem with such a policy.

Seems quite reasonable to me.

[proud2BlibKansan]

24. I hear ya. But I still don't trust Brownback.

Not as far as I could throw him. He's a slime.

[Unvanguard]

26. Your mistrust is probably wholly justified.

I would be on the lookout especially for devices to use this as a means to force women into marriage, which is something Republicans have been trying to do for decades (sometimes, as with welfare "reform", with the complicity of Democrats.)

[jwirr]

25. This reminds me of the argument way back when I was a young

single mother. If you were on welfare and got married your new husband was expected to take responsibility for your children. This was a law that was definitely keeping men from marrying. I do not remember how it was settled either but I am wondering if that might not be the problem in Kansas? Think about it. If your girlfriend has 1 or 2 children before you even meet her are you going to want to have to take care of them? What about their birth father? In those days mothers got the children and very small child support settlements and then if the man moved out of state no one follow up on it. That is why they wanted to be able to force the new husband to take over. So there was a lot of sneaking around after dark. Social workers even showed up on your doorstep in the middle of the night to catch the new boyfriend.

Crazy old days!