Stimulating the Welfare Culture

**Kathianne** · 02-12-2009, 10:05 AM

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** · 02-12-2009, 12:23 PM

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** · 02-12-2009, 02:58 PM

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** · 02-13-2009, 12:56 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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

**bullypulpit** · 02-13-2009, 05:16 AM

Originally Posted by Kathianne

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 American Dream: Three Women, Ten Kids, and a Nation's Drive to End Welfare.,

<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** · 02-13-2009, 05:25 AM

Originally Posted by bullypulpit

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 American Dream: Three Women, Ten Kids, and a Nation's Drive to End Welfare.,

<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** · 02-15-2009, 01:54 AM

Originally Posted by bullypulpit

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 American Dream: Three Women, Ten Kids, and a Nation's Drive to End Welfare.,

<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** · 02-15-2009, 02:02 AM

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

**Joe Steel** · 02-15-2009, 07:24 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Hobbit

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** · 02-15-2009, 07:45 AM

Originally Posted by bullypulpit

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

Originally Posted by Kathianne

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?

Originally Posted by bullypulpit

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 American Dream: Three Women, Ten Kids, and a Nation's Drive to End Welfare.,

<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** · 02-15-2009, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by bullypulpit

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** · 02-15-2009, 12:41 PM

Votes / Power / Socialism

**Yurt** · 02-15-2009, 09:09 PM

Illinois GOP leader calls on Sen. Burris to resign

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090216/...evich_donation

**Kathianne** · 02-15-2009, 09:15 PM

Originally Posted by Yurt

Illinois GOP leader calls on Sen. Burris to resign

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090216/...evich_donation

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

**Yurt** · 02-15-2009, 09:16 PM

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

Thread: Stimulating the Welfare Culture

Thread Tools

Display

Stimulating the Welfare Culture

Posting Permissions