This forum post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore m00n. Show Details
This forum post is hidden because you have submitted an abuse report against it. Show Details
My primary objection is simply that this issue was labeled as 'political'.
You may disagree with it --- I'm simply pointing out that singles were already treated differently and the feds would undo the work/search requirements. I was a caseworker in the 70's. Singles were treated differently then --- a different program from AFDC (aid to families with dependent children). In effect, this is 'old news'.
As I said, just pointing out that there is a reason, agree or not. It's not simply some ogre just making up rules because he hates single people. There was, and always has been, issues with the entire welfare system that essentially 'entitle' people who are not doing anything to help themselves. We had decades of give-aways.
This was NOT an issue to the public until the recent economic unpleasantness. A year ago, you would have been waving the rah-rah banner for the mayor. Now, issues are perceived differently.
".............Though New York could probably have qualified for the exemption, Giuliani and Turner chose not to claim it. Since unmarried mothers with children were being asked to work, they reasoned, how could the city justify giving unconditional benefits to able-bodied single men without child-rearing responsibilities? Carving out an exception to the reciprocity philosophy in one area would make it harder to maintain it in other areas.....".
I labeled this action as political because the action of governors in declining parts of the stimulus payments were labeled political in the previous thread. Declining stimulus money is either political for everyone who is doing it or it is not. If this thread is taken on it's own, without reference to the previous thread, I can understand your objection to the characterization.
I know this isn't about some ogre making up rules because he hates single people. Neither are the governors making up rules because they hate the unemployed. In both cases, there are reasons for the action, whether we agree with it or not.
While I see our point, and I understand the rationale, there is an underlying assumption that single means a young single man with no responsibilities. Decisions that directly impact the economic well being of individuals are based on that interpretation of single, and the result is punitive tax laws that punish single people.
The majority of women in the USA are now single. A large percentage of those women are over age 50. When laws are passed to make singles pay more in taxes and receive less in benefits, we are talking about laws that have negative impact on people over age 50, especially women. These are our mothers, our grandmothers, and our aunts. Sometimes they are us.