Stimulating the Welfare Culture

[Kathianne]

Seems to be one of the goals of the package:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/wm2287.cfm


February 11, 2009
Stimulus Bill Abolishes Welfare Reform and Adds New Welfare Spending
by Robert E. Rector and Katherine Bradley
WebMemo #2287

A major public policy success, welfare reform in the mid-1990s led to a dramatic reduction in welfare dependency and child poverty. This successful reform, however is now in jeopardy: Little-noted provisions in the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate stimulus bills actually abolish this historic reform. In addition, the stimulus bills will add nearly $800 billion in new means-tested welfare spending over the next decade. This new spending amounts to around $22,500 for every poor person in the U.S. The cost of the new welfare spending amounts, on average, to over $10,000 for each family paying income tax.

Ending Welfare Reform...

[Hobbit]

Yes, because I know SOOOOOOOO many welfare moms who have small businesses and a staff. Yes, welfare recipients, the dregs of society, are the ones who make the f-ing jobs.

Seriously, I've got to enter the job market full-time next summer. This pisses me off.

[Classact]

To top it off the states combined medicaid shortfall is somewhere around 11B but the democrats are sending out 60 billion for that reason? Now guess what President Obama suspended the program President Bush put into place that requires government contractors to clear their employees with the SS administration to assure they were legal. I guess the main thing that will be checked for government contracts is if an employee has a union card since if the guy has any color at all he'll be considered a Democrat voter since Obama doesn't care which country origin gets stimulated as long as they stimulate democrats.

[DragonStryk72]

Yes, because I know SOOOOOOOO many welfare moms who have small businesses and a staff. Yes, welfare recipients, the dregs of society, are the ones who make the f-ing jobs.

Seriously, I've got to enter the job market full-time next summer. This pisses me off.

Hey, if it would get them off welfare, I'd almost be willing to go that route

[bullypulpit]

Seems to be one of the goals of the package:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/wm2287.cfm

Gosh...doncha think it might be necessary to expand welfare roles with so many people losing jobs and all?

As for the "welfare-to-work" plans encouraged under the 1996 welfare reform act, "welfare-to-work" only works when there are jobs to be had, never mind that most of the mothers who got jobs had no access to affordable child care, few if any health insurance benefits and long hours.

As Jason DeParle pointed out in <i>American Dream: Three Women, Ten Kids, and a Nation's Drive to End Welfare.</i>,

<blockquote>"Most of the social disorders attributed to welfare were present in sharecropping society...The problems didn't begin with welfare. They didn't end with welfare."</blockquote>

[Kathianne]

Gosh...doncha think it might be necessary to expand welfare roles with so many people losing jobs and all?

As for the "welfare-to-work" plans encouraged under the 1996 welfare reform act, "welfare-to-work" only works when there are jobs to be had, never mind that most of the mothers who got jobs had no access to affordable child care, few if any health insurance benefits and long hours.

As Jason DeParle pointed out in <i>American Dream: Three Women, Ten Kids, and a Nation's Drive to End Welfare.</i>,

<blockquote>"Most of the social disorders attributed to welfare were present in sharecropping society...The problems didn't begin with welfare. They didn't end with welfare."</blockquote>

No, I don't. Perhaps extending unemployment benefits, yes. Welfare, no. Especially with incentives for states to increase their 'share' of the pie, by expanding.

It's been done and two generations of children were lost to the stupidity warned about at the inception by Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

[DragonStryk72]

Gosh...doncha think it might be necessary to expand welfare roles with so many people losing jobs and all?

As for the "welfare-to-work" plans encouraged under the 1996 welfare reform act, "welfare-to-work" only works when there are jobs to be had, never mind that most of the mothers who got jobs had no access to affordable child care, few if any health insurance benefits and long hours.

As Jason DeParle pointed out in <i>American Dream: Three Women, Ten Kids, and a Nation's Drive to End Welfare.</i>,

<blockquote>"Most of the social disorders attributed to welfare were present in sharecropping society...The problems didn't begin with welfare. They didn't end with welfare."</blockquote>


But what of the people who had no jobs to begin with? They're getting expanded funding too, including the ones who've been on welfare since the last recession in the 80s. Now you're telling me that both Stephen Hawking, and Christopher Reeves managed to hold it together on the job front, but that in 20 years, these people couldn't get a job, and should be getting a pay raise for their lack of intiative?

[LiberalNation]

You can only be on welfare 4 years total since the reforms so there are no one on it from the 80s.

[Joe Steel]

Yes, because I know SOOOOOOOO many welfare moms who have small businesses and a staff. Yes, welfare recipients, the dregs of society, are the ones who make the f-ing jobs.

They do.

Not directly but because they spend every penny they get and that spending creates jobs.


of the $816 billion in new spending and tax cuts in the House stimulus bill--32 percent or $264 billion--is new means-tested welfare spending, providing cash, food, housing, and medical care to poor and low income Americans.[5] (The figure in the Senate bill is about 15 percent lower.)

This is a great idea. The beneficiaries will make their neighborhoods boom towns.


Seriously, I've got to enter the job market full-time next summer. This pisses me off.

Then you should thank President Obama, Representative Pelosi and Senator Reid. If the can keep a slacker on welfare, you won't have to compete with him in the job market.

[bullypulpit]

Gosh...doncha think it might be necessary to expand welfare roles with so many people losing jobs and all?


No, I don't. Perhaps extending unemployment benefits, yes. Welfare, no. Especially with incentives for states to increase their 'share' of the pie, by expanding.

It's been done and two generations of children were lost to the stupidity warned about at the inception by Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

The stupidity was in failing to adequately address the root causes...lack of education, lack of affordable child care, lack of adequate health care, things we all too often take for granted.

Now, do you wish to address the other issues raised below?


As for the "welfare-to-work" plans encouraged under the 1996 welfare reform act, "welfare-to-work" only works when there are jobs to be had, never mind that most of the mothers who got jobs had no access to affordable child care, few if any health insurance benefits and long hours.

As Jason DeParle pointed out in <i>American Dream: Three Women, Ten Kids, and a Nation's Drive to End Welfare.</i>,

<blockquote>"Most of the social disorders attributed to welfare were present in sharecropping society...The problems didn't begin with welfare. They didn't end with welfare."</blockquote>

[Kathianne]

The stupidity was in failing to adequately address the root causes...lack of education, lack of affordable child care, lack of adequate health care, things we all too often take for granted.

Now, do you wish to address the other issues raised below?

If 'the problems' were from sharecropping era and welfare didn't 'fix them', then repeating the remedy will not work, that actually is the common definition of insanity.

Welfare addresses the symptoms of poverty, not the causes.

Welfare destroyed the structure of the black family, warned about from the inception and documented by both sociological, cultural anthropological, and economic studies. The only justification for increasing welfare again is to create a large block lower class, dependent for all needs on the government.

[emmett]

Votes / Power / Socialism

[Yurt]

Illinois GOP leader calls on Sen. Burris to resign

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090216/ap_on_re_us/burris_blagojevich_donation

[Kathianne]

Illinois GOP leader calls on Sen. Burris to resign

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090216/ap_on_re_us/burris_blagojevich_donation

Won't happen. I do wonder and will be surprised if he's brought up for perjury.

[Yurt]

oooops, put that in the wrong thread, thought it was my roland burris thread :laugh2:

[red states rule]

It is as if our country is on fast track to destruction

Liberals fail to see how harmful these entitlement programs are on people. They refuse to see how it tears down families and does not give children an opportunity to realize their full potential.

It creates a group of people that are selfish and believe that they are entitled to something that they don't work for.

[Kathianne]

It is as if our country is on fast track to destruction

Liberals fail to see how harmful these entitlement programs are on people. They refuse to see how it tears down families and does not give children an opportunity to realize their full potential.

It creates a group of people that are selfish and believe that they are entitled to something that they don't work for.

I think they know, they either think 'this time we'll get it right,' or really want massive amounts of dependent people on the government. I hate to be cynical but think it's the later.

[red states rule]

I think they know, they either think 'this time we'll get it right,' or really want massive amounts of dependent people on the government. I hate to be cynical but think it's the later.

I know Dems want as many people as possible to be dependent on government - it is what keeps them in power

But do they reaaly know how it destroys people and families

Here is an example


In Wisconsin, the state that forged a pioneering path in welfare reforms in the 1990s, residents were astonished by a newspaper investigation that disclosed that a $340m (£236m) programme offering taxpayer-financed child care to low-income working parents was riddled with fraud and expensive loopholes.

In one case, a family of four sisters who had 17 children between them put all of them together, took it in turns to babysit them and over the past three years claimed $540,000 (£374,000) in perfectly legal state childcare subsidies.

Examples like that fuel American suspicion that so-called “big government” invariably turns out to be inefficient, expensive and easily exploitable. And there has been no bigger government action in the US than the stimulus package presented by Obama.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5733499.ece

[Kathianne]

I know Dems want as many people as possible to be dependent on government - it is what keeps them in power

But do they reaaly know how it destroys people and families

Here is an example


In Wisconsin, the state that forged a pioneering path in welfare reforms in the 1990s, residents were astonished by a newspaper investigation that disclosed that a $340m (£236m) programme offering taxpayer-financed child care to low-income working parents was riddled with fraud and expensive loopholes.

In one case, a family of four sisters who had 17 children between them put all of them together, took it in turns to babysit them and over the past three years claimed $540,000 (£374,000) in perfectly legal state childcare subsidies.

Examples like that fuel American suspicion that so-called “big government” invariably turns out to be inefficient, expensive and easily exploitable. And there has been no bigger government action in the US than the stimulus package presented by Obama.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5733499.ece
Oh yes, I think they know, how could they not? Besides harking back to my first posts, Moynihan warned about just such outcomes, they had to be watching for it, nevertheless it all happened through the 1990's when Clinton stopped it. It's made a difference in Chicago, for the better. Now it's going to be undone, at the signature of the President.

[red states rule]

Oh yes, I think they know, how could they not? Besides harking back to my first posts, Moynihan warned about just such outcomes, they had to be watching for it, nevertheless it all happened through the 1990's when Clinton stopped it. It's made a difference in Chicago, for the better. Now it's going to be undone, at the signature of the President.

I liberals will toss theri won under the bus without a second thought - but I guess you are right Kat - they will alos toss families and children unde rthe bus as well it is helps their party

Almost makes you want to have tons of kids just to get a payout.

Welfare state here we come.