Republicans can’t stop comparing food stamp recipients to wild animals on Facebook

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: mymymy

Government programs aren't designed to get people off of government assistance. Government programs are only interested in the "status quo". Government needs people on assistance in order to justify it's program(s).

It is ONLY up to the individual to get off that "assistance" if they truly desire.

Do you still find this to be true in light of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996?

a reply to: marg6043

Wasn't it Pelosi who said that welfare and unemployment was actually good for the economy?

Found it. . .

"Economists agree that unemployment benefits remain one of the best ways to grow the economy in a very immediate way. It immediately injects demand into our markets and increases employment. For every dollar spent on unemployment benefits, the economy grows by, according to one estimate, $1.52; by others, $2. So somewhere in that range, but much more than is spent on it," Pelosi said.

cnsnews.com...

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: mymymy

Government programs aren't designed to get people off of government assistance. Government programs are only interested in the "status quo". Government needs people on assistance in order to justify it's program(s).

It is ONLY up to the individual to get off that "assistance" if they truly desire.

Do you still find this to be true in light of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996?

I'm not familiar with that. But like all government programs, was it successful?

a reply to: beezzer

Oh, it is beezzer is great for everybody but the tax payer, we are the ones that never get a cut from the profits of keeping people hook on government assistance.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: NavyDoc

Why don't you start a thread about our relationship Doc and stop trying to derail this one.

What are you talking about? The thread is about attitudes about welfare. You brought up a specific attitude and I was addressing it.


We don't have a relationship.

a reply to: beezzer

Interesting. Sadly, I was afraid you weren't completely up-to-date on the subject.

Here, I'll Google for you:

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) is a United States federal law considered to be a major welfare reform. The bill was a cornerstone of the Republican Contract with America and was introduced by Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL-22). President Bill Clinton signed PRWORA into law on August 22, 1996, fulfilling his 1992 campaign promise to "end welfare as we have come to know it".

PRWORA instituted Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which became effective July 1, 1997. TANF replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program—which had been in effect since 1935—and supplanted the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training program (JOBS) of 1988. The law was heralded as a "reassertion of America's work ethic" by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, largely in response to the bill's workfare component. TANF was reauthorized in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.

PRWORA (1996)

Also from that article ...

In 1996, after constructing two welfare reform bills that were vetoed by President Clinton,[18] Gingrich and his supporters pushed for the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), a bill aimed at substantially reconstructing the welfare system. Introduced by Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr., the act gave state governments more autonomy over welfare delivery, while also reducing the federal government's responsibilities.

It started the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program, which placed time limits on welfare assistance and replaced the longstanding Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. Other changes to the welfare system included stricter conditions for food stamps eligibility, reductions in immigrant welfare assistance, and recipient work requirements.

Gingrich and Clinton negotiated the legislation in private meetings. Previously, Clinton had quietly spoken with Senate Majority Whip Trent Lott for months about the bill, but a compromise on a more acceptable bill for the President could not be reached. Gingrich, on the other hand, gave accurate information about his party's vote counts and persuaded the more conservative members of the Republican Party to vote in favor of PRWORA.

President Clinton found the legislation more conservative than he would have preferred; however, having vetoed two earlier welfare proposals from the Republican-majority Congress, it was considered a political risk to veto a third bill during a campaign season with welfare reform as a central theme. As he signed the bill on August 22, 1996, Clinton stated that the act "gives us a chance we haven't had before to break the cycle of dependency that has existed for millions and millions of our fellow citizens, exiling them from the world of work. It gives structure, meaning and dignity to most of our lives".

I'd hate to think that you or anyone else here is merely repeating the standard cant of political ideology without knowing the facts.

a reply to: mymymy

People like Beezzer keep saying "they just need to get off their butts and make a success of themselves", but if poverty is all you've ever seen and all you've ever known, it just isn't that easy. I'm not saying it can't be done - of course it can, but it's hard to see it and believe it when you and everyone around you is in the same situation.

When I was in middle school, my best friend was from " the wrong side of the tracks". Her mother had dropped out of high school, her father barely got his GED, and her older sister got pregnant at 16, dropped out of high school, and was living at home while working as a waitress at a truck stop. My friend saw my middle class lifestyle and wanted to be better off than the rest of her family. We used to day dream about going to college together. She would talk about how she wanted to do something in the science field. She would say that she hated the kind of life her parents and sister had, and she wanted better for herself. Of course, I encouraged her to follow her dreams.

Unfortunately, her mother just hated me. She thought I was snooty and pretentious, and that I thought my poop didn't stink (she actually told me that to my face one night when she was drunk). By the time we were freshmen in high school, I saw less and less of her - I guess her mother putting me down so much influenced her in some way, and we just didn't hang out together any more. By the time we were juniors, I didn't see her at school at all, and I heard she had dropped out, and was working at the same truck stop as her sister.

The whole thing just makes me sad, because she was a bright girl who just got stuck in her family's paradigm, and without the influence of someone like me, just couldn't get out of it.

a reply to: Spider879

I still don't believe those stats. I work in the medical field. We have had companies that hire directly out of my states unemployment registry. These companies stopped using our facilities because over a third of their candidates couldn't pass a drug test. I've seen it first hand.


Most of the candidates that were offered the job didn't even show up for the pre-employment appointment lol. I used to be optimistic about numbers like yours until I saw the real thing.

Also, how long are we going to use the very emotionally-stirring but fiscally-meaningless analogy that we have a "Chinese menu option" on the taxes we pay, to wit, "I don't want my hard-earned money going for _______."

It plays well to our ideological factions, but it's basically BS and we all know it.

Taxes paid become government revenue. At the point you make the transfer, it is no longer "your money" any more than your payment on an electric bill is "your money." Even if you are a shareholder in that utility company, the biggest "right" you have is to vote on the administrators of that company (usually a Board of Directors).

As shareholders in "the US corporation" we elect our "Board of Directors" as well.

Any other description, while useful for partisan argumentation, is simply not financially accurate.

/shrug

a reply to: NavyDoc

Hogwash. You know you love old, opinionated, mouthy, liberal moms. That's why you pick on me.

Ok. We will never agree, I surrender.

a reply to: Gryphon66

For a nation founded on 'No taxation without representation", what you say seems wholly foreign to me.

If i have a stake, its my money. If i don't have a stake, then ill take my money (and job skills) and leave.

This is an establishment problem that goes beyond party lines. Their is no left or right, just sold out politicians that fall back on these issues to portray the people as the problem; deflecting accountability from themselves.

Meanwhile they fill their pockets with money from the highest bidder. In my opinion, I think they forgot; when you point your finger at someone else, three are pointing right back at you.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Gryphon66

For a nation founded on 'No taxation without representation", what you say seems wholly foreign to me.

If i have a stake, its my money. If i don't have a stake, then ill take my money (and job skills) and leave.

Are you saying you don't have representation in government?

As far as "having a stake" ... that's fine. I understand the sentiment.

As far as what "your stake" gives you, you benefit from the ability to vote on your representatives in government, as well as the entire spectrum of infrastructure and services that are provided by and through government.

a reply to: Gryphon66

their heart was in the right place maybe, but well, they seemed to unleash a lot of people into the workforce who really were much more happier at home taking care of their kids and quite frankly don't have to even worry about their earnings covering the cost of their child care (paid for by us taxpayer) or earning a living...
I've met women who've actually got more from gov't when you include the child care than they did while working, on top of the money that they earned. ya see, working brings about extra expenses which the gov't feels obligted to meet.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Gryphon66

their heart was in the right place maybe, but well, they seemed to unleash a lot of people into the workforce who really were much more happier at home taking care of their kids and quite frankly don't have to even worry about their earnings covering the cost of their child care (paid for by us taxpayer) or earning a living...
I've met women who've actually got more from gov't when you include the child care than they did while working, on top of the money that they earned. ya see, working brings about extra expenses which the gov't feels obligted to meet.

You're summarizing the entire Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, all of the results and implications of results over the last 22 years as "their heart was in the right place, maybe"?

No offense, but that's stunning.

The assertions have been made throughout this discussion that our social safety net programs are nothing more than some kind of "government teat" that the "lazy good for-nuthins" can attach themselves to and live on forever at our expense.

I realize that's mere ideological shorthand for prevalent beliefs, but, the fact is that Federal law has, for over two decades, set considerable limits on how long someone can be on these programs, and have left it to the States to determine how to best move Americans off these programs and back into productivity.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Essentially, I am saying i have no voice in government. Yes.

I mean, the 5000lb elephant bumbling around the room is Citizens United and corporate personhood. Since money is free speech, and corporations are people entitled to free speech, you can see how their voice is far, far louder than any of us.



Rant, as an aside:

I was sitting this morning thinking about the pitifully enraging debacle that is known as "Criminal Justice" in America. I imean, we see cops beating the holy hell out of people, we see that we have the most incarcerated populace on the planet, and we do absolutely nothing about it.

I get what Krazyshot was saying about how everyone has their own "pet" issue that is always more important....but don't let this come across as my pet issue. Its just the issue that stands out as effecting almost everyone in this country, the one issue that everyone agrees is a real, serious problem, and absolutely nothing is getting done about it.

We all sit in stunned amazement at the impudence on display in the name of Criminal Justice. We all know its a serious problem. And i'm sure we will get to talking about it once we put this whole flag business to rest.

So when it comes to things like Citizens United, it is wholly unsurprising that we all agree its a problem. Every year we all nod in agreement that we need to have serious campaign finance reform. And instead of demanding our own voice, we talk about Bruce Jenner.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I agree that if they are following that law, and I think they do the best they can to do it, there isn't that many still sitting around and making it without working..
I just think that the law has kind of backfired in some ways.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Gryphon66

Essentially, I am saying i have no voice in government. Yes.

If that is your honest belief, then I can understand your position "no taxation without" in terms of emotional reaction.

Notice I didn't say "honest representation" ... I'm not sure if we've ever had that.

I agree with your comments about Citizens United et. al.

I agree with your comments about the sad (police) state of "Criminal Justice" in our country.

I do not agree with either the spirit or the letter of the comments that some have made here ... "I don't want to give my money to help keep others up."

Because, irrationally, that supposes that the government (any) somehow uses each tax dollar proportionally for each type of government expenditure ... which is just nutty. I sometimes quip something like "well, let's just assume that all of your money went to buy more bombs to drop on foreign people and all of mine went to help the American needy."

... but that's just pithiness and doesn't address the reality of the situation, either.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Gryphon66

I agree that if they are following that law, and I think they do the best they can to do it, there isn't that many still sitting around and making it without working..
I just think that the law has kind of backfired in some ways.

Sorry, I've got my dander up over this, and I was impolite to you.

Every law backfires in some ways, great or small. Even the good ones. My only point is and has been that social programs are not and have not been for over twenty years just some Federal handout program that sustains people through their whole lives ... which is the supposition of much of the discussion in this thread.

I do beg your pardon!

a reply to: Gryphon66

well...if it matters we have discussed how disparate my libertarian views are to your liberal views at some point in the past. And agreed to disagree then.

So ill throw up a white flag on that particular discussion.