Advertisement

Discussions

Reader comments

On Rules tighten on TANF recipients

Comments

Orwell 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Well, so much for "Love thy neighbor." The extremists and hate-spewers who think this is a good idea are proving the lack of any connection between their views and Christian principles. This evil, spiteful clique has apparently misunderstood Matthew 19:14 "But Jesus said, Suffer little children."

1

oldbaldguy 11 months, 3 weeks ago

life is about choices and consequences.

1

autie 11 months, 3 weeks ago

But I don't think de Rocha knows anything about poverty. Or single mothers. Or wondering how the light bill was to be paid and not have the water shut off. Or why what I said before is gone. Their frame of reference in Topeka is skewed so as to distort the reality of poor people.

5

skinney 11 months, 3 weeks ago

I have never taken any welfare or help from the government, but it is very easy to sit back and judge others. People should make sure that they have a spotless home before they make remarks about others.

2

valgrlku 11 months, 3 weeks ago

I'm getting very frustrated with the lack of pertinent information being reported in relation to these "welfare" laws. First, how many new mothers receive this assistance? It has to be very low, consider the extremely low number of individuals receiving TANF in the first place. As someone else pointed out, TANF is not the lottery. In Kansas, one has to earn less than $6000 PER YEAR to qualify (I believe - couldn't find that number this time around on the site).

According to the State's own website, health care, child care, etc. are NOT GUARANTEED. From my own experience, child care is not fully covered - not even close. Do any of you really know how much childcare for an infant is? Several years ago, it was well over $800 per month at a local non-profit center. This is assuming one can get in, of course. What jobs here in town pay enough to cover the cost of childcare and living expenses? This is a multi-faceted systemic issue that should NOT be placed squarely on the backs of the working poor.

Let's all try to inform ourselves about existing policies and who is affecting before being so judgmental, shall we?

http://www.dcf.ks.gov/services/ees/Pages/Cash/TAF.aspx

2

valgrlku 11 months, 3 weeks ago

I'm getting very frustrated with the lack of pertinent information being reported in relation to these "welfare" laws. First, how many new mothers receive this assistance? It has to be very low, consider the extremely low number of individuals receiving TANF in the first place. As someone else pointed out, TANF is not the lottery. In Kansas, one has to earn less than $6000 PER YEAR to qualify.

According to the State's own website, health care, child care, etc. are NOT GUARANTEED. From my own experience, child care is not fully covered - not even close. Do any of you really know how much childcare for an infant is? Several years ago, it was well over $800 per month at a local non-profit center. This is assuming one can get in, of course. What jobs here in town pay enough to cover the cost of childcare and living expenses? This is a systemic issue that should be placed squarely on the backs of the working poor.

Let's all try to inform ourselves about existing policies and who is affecting before being so judgmental, shall we?

http://www.dcf.ks.gov/services/ees/Pages/Cash/TAF.aspx

4

anomicbomb 11 months, 3 weeks ago

"TANF is a federally funded program that is administered by DCF."

Just wanted to point out that this is a federally funded program and cutting this program won't actually save KS any $.

In addition, if you really want to deal with these issues in cost-effective ways, we'd do everything we can to ensure that women have every opportunity to not get pregnant when they are not in a position to raise kids. Quality sex education, access to birth control for both men and women, the morning after pill, and, as a last resort, access to safe legal abortion (which, while legal in KS, is effectively very difficult to access, especially for women with low resources).

And if your stance is anti-abortion but you promote abstinence-only education and oppose birth control access and oppose the morning after pill, can you explain your position? If you feel abortion is murder, shouldn't you want to do everything to prevent pregnancy in the first place? (And if you feel the morning after pill is the same thing as just a very early term abortion, I weep for our state's need for better science and biology teaching).

13

JohnnyRaven 11 months, 3 weeks ago

I curse each and everyone of you evil heartless runny mouth cowards commenting on things you really shouldn't be... May boils form in your mouths. You are so perfect yourselves yet your mothers made a mistake, everyone of you should have been aborted. This is a small town watch what you say.

0

Michael LoBurgio 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Republicans Prove How Clueless They Are By Blaming Their Debt on the Poor

It’s unfathomable to even contemplate how Republicans can classify the poor as the drivers of debt in our country. Day after day, we continue to be subjected to talks of President Obama’s chained CPI budget proposals not going far enough–that “real” entitlement cuts are needed across the board to truly start fixing our debt crisis. Republicans have doubled down on vilifying the poorest among us, just to protect the highest income earners from the horrors of shared sacrifice. In doing so, they’ve backed themselves into a mathematical paradox exposing how willfully ignorant they’ve become as a whole.

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/republicans-prove-how-clueless-they-are-by-blaming-their-debt-on-the-poor/

12

Michael LoBurgio 11 months, 3 weeks ago

How The Poor, The Middle Class And The Rich Spend Their Money

Everyone devotes a huge chunk of their budget to housing, for example. Poor, middle class and rich families spend similar shares of their budgets on clothing and shoes, and on food outside the home.

But poor families spend a much larger share of their budget on basic necessities such as food at home, utilities and health care. Rich families are able to devote a much bigger chunk of their spending to education, and a much, much bigger share to saving for retirement. (The retirement line includes contributions to Social Security and to private retirement plans, by the way.)

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/08/01/157664524/how-the-poor-the-middle-class-and-the-rich-spend-their-money?sc=tw&cc=share

5

William Weissbeck 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Yep, that $282 per month really funds a nice lifestyle.

8

Kim Watkins 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Plain and simple...if you need assistance to have children, you should not be having them.

3

jafs 11 months, 3 weeks ago

I think it's generally a mistake to have the public sector emulate the private without any deeper thought on the issue.

The fact that employers may require women to come back to work 2 months after giving birth doesn't mean that's the right thing to do.

7

Bob_Keeshan 11 months, 3 weeks ago

The irony here is that Angel de Rocha has never worked in the private sector. Neither has her boss, Governor Sam Brownback.

Makes you wonder why they think they know so much about it.

13

BrooksideJayhawk 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Good grief, people. Why not just round up all poor people and kill them? They'll be off your welfare rolls (and they never were on your consciences). Problem solved.

8

jhawkinsf 11 months, 3 weeks ago

As long as people are comfortable reaching into the wallets of other people to support their lifestyles, they need to be ready to have those people scrutinize their lifestyle choices.

3

Deb Engstrom 11 months, 3 weeks ago

There's a big problem with this proposal. Do they have any idea how much it costs for childcare for a 2 month old infant?? It is outrageous if there is even an opening in a place that takes children that young. I hope they are prepared for that added cost.

8

PwopellewCap 11 months, 3 weeks ago

The first letter in TANF is Temporary -- 2 months is temporary enough. If I or my wife have to go back to work after 8 weeks under FML Act guidelines, so should you. If you can't do that then you shouldn't have had the baby in the first place. Harsh but fair.

5

LJ Whirled 11 months, 3 weeks ago

What was intended as a "floor" becomes a "ceiling" --- the only way through it is education/training.

2

Bob Forer 11 months, 3 weeks ago

I agree with a woman's constitutional right to privacy and control over her own body. But the converse should also be true--a woman has an obligation to control her body, i.e., if she cannot afford to raise a child, she has no business conceiving. TANA, much like its predecessor, AFDC, simply irrationally perpetuates a group of people destined to remain an underclass.

Free birth control upon request.

3

Commenting has been disabled for this item.