Some of the men turn gay, others turn to drugs to incinerate their sorrows. But through no fault of the justice system, they fall afoul of it in disproportionate numbers.

Are you finding Prager more entertaining than your barbri materials

Isn’t this basically a re-hash of the entirety of right-wing anti-welfare talking points since, oh, 1965, and the driving force behind Clinton’s “welfare reform?”

*sigh*

It is true that there is a relationship between pervasive ongoing poverty, the consequent welfare dependence, and the breakdown of poor families.  Note I did not say *black* families, as you see a similar pattern among poor whites in marginalized communities.  I would like to point out that this breakdown is largely a function of the lack for jobs for the men and the insistence of conservatives (fom the passage of the earliest welfare programs) that welfare payments not go toward the support of “able bodied” adult men.  There is no other way for poor women to support their children than to go on welfare and they cannot get welfare if they have an able bodied husband.  The conservatives created a self-fulfilling prophecy.

MAJeff @3: Yup

And Planned Parenthood in Indiana closed down today, so there will be more poor children out there in the future.

Sorry, PP-Indiana didn’t close, they just stopped offering Medicaid services.  So only the poorest people are cut off from family planning services.  Sickening.

I’d reckon this situation is just as common in mostly white rural communities as it is among blacks in the inner cities. Prager’s already off base here. It’s not just a black thing. Plus if there rewlly were a well-employed man in the picture, AFDC would not seem so attractive. Holmes with a job always beats the feds if he wants to. WIC is always available whatever the partner status of the woman is. Many upper class grad students with families go on WIC, which makes me think that universities should pay their coaches less and up the pay of their TAs.

Problem is long recognized and easily solved. The “man in the house” AFDC rules need to be relaxed. Underemployed man in the house should not be a problem. Baby daddy or feds should come up less often as a choice. And this is not just a black thing. Rural whites get plenty of welfare and face the same choices. Solution? Quit putting so many of the dads in jail. If you like nuclear families, give AFDC when papa’s still around. Perhaps end our wars and dump money into infrastructure grants so dad (or mom, no reason dad can’t be primary caregiver) can get a more stable job. And maybe have better schools and more after school enrichment programs, so the kids have more options in the future.

Prager is correct that some aspects of the welfare system exclude men from their children’s lives. He is wrong to say this is typically a black issue. Probably more whites than blacks are affected by this, while it is still likely that probortionatily more blacks are affected.

I’m not sure what Prager’s getting at. If this is a problem, help homeboy out. If he wants to be involved, let his woman still get help. Get him a job, Get her a job. Don’t send so many dudes to prison. How hard is this to figure out?

Many upper class grad students with families go on WIC, which makes me think that universities should pay their coaches less and up the pay of their TAs.

That’s hilarious.

I’m not sure “hilarious” is really the right word here, especially considering that there are lots of grad students out there who are decidedly not upper class.

First: MAJeff is right; this is the same basic argument that has been going on since the aftermath of the “Moynihan Report” of 1965. I do appreciate that the Prager has a taste for the classics.

Bacopa @8: AFDC no longer exists. It was replaced by TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) in the PRWORA of 1996. With the PRWORA, we really have no national welfare system. Most of the funding occurs through block grants to the states, who often have very different eligibility and administrative requirements (the federal law establishes some guidelines: e.g., it puts a time limit on benefits, requires job training or “workfare,” and insists that mothers cooperate in identifying the fathers of their children, but the states have broad discretion in filling in these guidelines).

I think what’s “hilarious” is the notion that coaches’ pay might ever be cut by anyone. I work at a Large State University and the highest paid employee is the mens’ basketball coach. In gratitude for our generosity, the team has just treated us to two losing seasons. All employees had furlough days this past year, but the administration came out and said, we won’t fire Coach Useless. It’s infuriating.

At my university, we faculty haven’t got raises in four years. But we have a football team now! Whoo hoo school spirit! The coach is paid 5.3x my salary. To his credit, he did lead the team to a 7-4 record, which really warmed my heart.

I’m losing the energy to even scoff at these racist assholes.

“this glut of well-employed men yearning to take care of their children but barred by the overwhelming appeal of several hundred dollars a month in temporary benefits.”

Yup, just like the glut of street people who gave up their great jobs as vice-presidents of strategic planning at Fortune 500 corporations, or letterhead partners in law firms, because they found homelessness so much more alluring.

I really am starting to think that wingers stay ignorant on purpose so they can continue to hate.

If you added up all the perks and bennies middle class and affluent parents get for their kids it’s at least as much or more than poor parents get.  As a childfree person, I love pointing this out to WASP Republican parents who rail against public assistance to minority women.  I remind them that I get to subsidize everyone’s kids and rattle off the numerous tax breaks, credits, child-centric public accommodations, and tax exempt compensation from their employers they get for having performed the heroic feat of procreating while being one of the favored class of Americans.  And then I say, “you’re welcome.”

@felagund: You must teach at a very egalitarian university (or you must get paid an awful lot of money). My institution’s football coach is paid over sixty-five times my (tenured and endowed) salary.

It’s almost enough to turn all of them gay, which I’m sure is the topic of tomorrow’s episode.

Maybe George Gilder will do it. Remember him? The most glibly “intellectual” of the women-are-for-making-babies-and-dinner crowd? According to him, young men turn gay because—I swear I’m not making this up—rich older men are scooping up all the hot girls. And who’s richer than Uncle Sam?

@18 but I thought that hot girls with older rich men was EVOLUTION! So it’s evolution’s fault young men “turn” gay? Wait I thought there wasn’t evolution, just Jesus Horses and stuff? So much cognitive dissonance!