Economy D.C. mother given $10,800 to help poor families, spends it on Miami trip and buys expensive clothes

[HockeyBjj]

poor people spend irresponsibly

• Other young moms said they put the windfall into paying down their debts

This woman should be shamed, but don’t try to lump all the other poor mothers in with her. The article literally said a majority used it responsibly. This dumbass was just an exception, and there’s always going to be dumbasses in a group

 

[Mr Holmes]

Well, you can always tell when the subsidies checks hit. Everybody gets new pickups, campers, side by sides, etc.

Thats far from the same thing.

 

[jefferz]

Thats far from the same thing.

They're getting government money that's supposed to be used for their farming operation, but yet they blow it on toys.

 

[Mr Holmes]

They're getting government money that's supposed to be used for their farming operation, but yet they blow it on toys.

Thats far from the same thing.

 

[MicroBrew]

What proof do you have that farmers are spending 10k of tax payer handouts on Miami vacations?

Thats far from the same thing.

Why does it need to be Miami vacations that is the redline on what is wastefull spending and what is not?

You know people can splurge things besides clothes and a Miami vacation.

 

[Mr Holmes]

Why does it need to be Miami vacations that is the redline on what is wastefull spending and what is not?

You know people can splurge things besides clothes and a Miami vacation.

Is it the same thing or not?

 

[MicroBrew]

Is it the same thing or not?

It's the same thing, in that both are wasting government aid on frivolities.

 

[Mr Holmes]

It's the same thing

Lol, sure it is.

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

• Other young moms said they put the windfall into paying down their debts

This woman should be shamed, but don’t try to lump all the other poor mothers in with her. The article literally said a majority used it responsibly. This dumbass was just an exception, and there’s always going to be dumbasses in a group

Did it say they did that or that they said they did that?

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

They're getting government money that's supposed to be used for their farming operation, but yet they blow it on toys.

Is there a source for this?

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

How about we focus on the people who did the right thing and encourage people to follow their example.

And what if they don't?

Any ideas?

 

[panamaican]

And what if they don't?

Any ideas?

And what if they do?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I said we should focus on people doing the right thing instead of the one outlier who did the wrong thing. You asked me what we do with bad actors. I said that we continue to focus on people going the right thing. Now you're asking me what to do if "they" don't.

There will always be bad actors and we have plenty of laws for dealing with criminals. But if you want to create a better society, you have to showcase the model you want people to follow. You have to highlight the behaviors that are valued. It's pointless to ignore good behavior because of an obsession with pointing at bad behavior.

And that's what it is -- an obsession with pointing at bad behavior.

Everything I've ever read about behavior, from raising children to corporate culture to sports coaching, says to highlight the behaviors that you want to encourage.

We have positive behaviors to highlight and some people prefer a fixation on the negative behaviors. It is to such an extent that they don't even want to acknowledge the existence of the positive.

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

And what if they do?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I said we should focus on people doing the right thing instead of the one outlier who did the wrong thing. You asked me what we do with bad actors. I said that we continue to focus on people going the right thing. Now you're asking me what to do if "they" don't.

There will always be bad actors and we have plenty of laws for dealing with criminals. But if you want to create a better society, you have to showcase the model you want people to follow. You have to highlight the behaviors that are valued. It's pointless to ignore good behavior because of an obsession with pointing at bad behavior.

And that's what it is -- an obsession with pointing at bad behavior.

Everything I've ever read about behavior, from raising children to corporate culture to sports coaching, says to highlight the behaviors that you want to encourage.

We have positive behaviors to highlight and some people prefer a fixation on the negative behaviors. It is to such an extent that they don't even want to acknowledge the existence of the positive.

Is there any actual record of what they used the money for or are we just to take them at their word?

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

And what if they do?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I said we should focus on people doing the right thing instead of the one outlier who did the wrong thing. You asked me what we do with bad actors. I said that we continue to focus on people going the right thing. Now you're asking me what to do if "they" don't.

I'm not trying to make a point. I'm asking you a pretty clear question that goes beyond your recommendation of focusing on the good and you clearly don't have an answer. We are assuming your positive reinforcement hasn't worked.

The overwhelming majority spent their money well, regardless of this tabloid shaming the ratchet. You mention positive reinforcement being a more powerful motivator for change and people who fixate on the negative can just barely see the good. That might be true but the opposite is true in your case. You have no idea what to do about people who squander the money given to them because you admit there will always be bad actors, which means you know positive reinforcement isn't enough.

So, in the case of bad actors, is your answer really just "fuck it."?

 

[Loiosh]

I'm not trying to make a point. I'm asking you a pretty clear question that goes beyond your recommendation of focusing on the good and you clearly don't have an answer. We are assuming your positive reinforcement hasn't worked.

The overwhelming majority spent their money well, regardless of this tabloid shaming the ratchet. You mention positive reinforcement being a more powerful motivator for change and people who fixate on the negative can just barely see the good. That might be true but the opposite is true in your case. You have no idea what to do about people who squander the money given to them because you admit there will always be bad actors, which means you know positive reinforcement isn't enough.

So, in the case of bad actors, is your answer really just "fuck it."?

I used to volunteer for a local food bank, delivering food to the elderly or infirm. At first I found it frustrating when I saw how many people were gaming the system, stoned kids who'd created accounts under their grandparents names to get free food deliveries, people driving from food bank to food bank getting as much as they could under different names.

I had a conversation with the center director who explained it was just the cost of doing business. If you create a system to help people in need, there were always going to be people taking advantage of that system.

It just wasn't worth the time or energy worrying about those people, it was better to focus instead on the people we were helping. That was the mission, helping people.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

I used to volunteer for a local food bank, delivering food to the elderly or infirm. At first I found it frustrating when I saw how many people were gaming the system, stoned kids who'd created accounts under their grandparents names to get free food deliveries, people driving from food bank to food bank getting as much as they could under different names.

I had a conversation with the center director who explained it was just the cost of doing business. If you create a system to help people in need, there were always going to be people taking advantage of that system.

It just wasn't worth the time or energy worrying about those people, it was better to focus instead on the people we were helping. That was the mission, helping people.

And that makes sense but it makes me feel like there might be some utility in articles like this. They are divorced from the institutions and are outside actors. If the institutions helping don't have answers, why not cultivate a culture that shames people like that?

As a society we should shame people like that for getting in the way of the truly needy.

 

[Loiosh]

And that makes sense but it makes me feel like there might be some utility in articles like this. They are divorced from the institutions and are outside actors. If the institutions helping don't have answers, why not cultivate a culture that shames people like that?

As a society we should shame people like that for getting in the way of the truly needy.

As long as it doesn't hurt the mission, which is what I'm afraid it does. Focusing on the people taking advantage hurts raising funds for these projects, who wants to pay for stoners getting free food deliveries? I sincerely doubt the people taking advantage can be shamed or that it would make any difference.

All of that said, I think it's important to gauge the efficiency of these projects. Make sure as high a percentage as possible is reaching the truly needy and if too many people are taking advantage of the system, make adjustments.

I just don't think outrage articles are the right way to go. All people will remember is this woman taking advantage and as for shame, the woman will not give a shit. Neither will the next person who sees an opening. Grifters as a rule are shameless.

The people who are actually being shamed here are the people running the project, and there has to be a better way to improve the results.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

As long as it doesn't hurt the mission, which is what I'm afraid it does. Focusing on the people taking advantage hurts raising funds for these projects, who wants to pay for stoners getting free food deliveries? I sincerely doubt the people taking advantage can be shamed or that it would make any difference.

All of that said, I think it's important to gauge the efficiency of these projects. Make sure as high a percentage as possible is reaching the truly needy and if too many people are taking advantage of the system, make adjustments.

I just don't think outrage articles are the right way to go. All people will remember is this woman taking advantage and as for shame, the woman will not give a shit. Neither will the next person who sees an opening. Grifters as a rule are shameless.

The people who are actually being shamed here are the people running the project, and there has to be a better way to improve the results.

I think for the sake of efficiency, there needs to be some form of recourse for these people.
The outrage articles probably aren't helpful as they are, but perhaps if they highlighted the good along with the bad, it could be beneficial.
The negatives need to be highlighted all the same.

Overall though, I agree with most of your post, and I think at the end of the day we both want the money to reach those who need it most.