Years Old Fears Assuaged ; Welfare Working As It Was Planned To

Looks like the fears of many after the 1996 overhaul of welfare that those who truly need it will be turned away have been assuaged. I remember Clinton got a lot of flack from the left when he signed this into law.

Numbers on Welfare See Sharp Increase

Welfare rolls, which were slow to rise and actually fell in many states early in the recession, now are climbing across the country for the first time since President Bill Clinton signed legislation pledging "to end welfare as we know it" more than a decade ago.

The recent rise in welfare families across the county is a sign that the welfare system is expanding at a time of added need, assuaging fears of some critics of Mr. Clinton's welfare overhaul who said the truly needy would be turned away.

"To me it's good news," says Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution, who helped draft the 1996 welfare-overhaul law as a Republican congressional staffer. "This is exactly what should happen."

Wasn't there something in "Stimulus II" that reformed welfare back to the way it was before Clinton signed "work-fare" into law?

I did a quick search and only see articles stating that there was language in the bill that would repeal it, and I don't really feel like reading through all 1000+ pages of legalese to find it.

This is my gripe about welfare, wic, etc. If the government wasn't so needed and would actually allow teachers to teach personal responsibility, we wouldn't need welfare and all these other entitlement programs minus disability.

Either way the "work-fare" worked exactly the way it was supposed too, quit giving people money to sit on their bottoms and they have to go find work. It really is a simple concept that works.

reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II

you should read about www.tcunation.com...[/url] here's an excerpt

This was an example of what are commonly called Trojan Horse movements -- mass movements whose outward purpose seems to be providing material help to the downtrodden, but whose real objective is to draft poor people into service as revolutionary foot soldiers; to mobilize poor people en masse to overwhelm government agencies with a flood of demands beyond the capacity of those agencies to meet. The flood of demands was calculated to break the budget, jam the bureaucratic gears into gridlock, and bring the system crashing down. Fear, turmoil, violence and economic collapse would accompany such a breakdown -- providing perfect conditions for fostering radical change. That was the theory.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


You are 100% right.

Obama warned over ‘welfare spendathon’

RONALD REAGAN started it, Bill Clinton finished it and last week Barack Obama was accused of engineering its destruction. One of the few undisputed triumphs of American government of the past 20 years – the sweeping welfare reform programme that sent millions of dole claimants back to work – has been plunged into jeopardy by billions of dollars in state handouts included in the president’s controversial economic stimulus package.

As Obama celebrated Valentine’s Day yesterday with a return to his Chicago home for a private weekend with family and friends, his success in piloting a $785 billion (£546 billion) stimulus package through Congress was being overshadowed by warnings that an unprecedented increase in welfare spending would undermine two decades of bipartisan attempts to reduce dependency on government handouts.

Robert Rector, a senior scholar at the conservative Heritage Foundation, argued that Obama’s spending proposals in effect encouraged individual states to add more families to their welfare rolls; the more Americans sign on to the dole, the more state budgets will benefit from US Treasury payouts.

So, if I got this straight, states are being given bonuses for getting more people on welfare under Barry's stimulus bill. Well, that figures.

reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II


Yep and not to derail the topic, it all fits into this this thread here.

He is intentionally trying to crash the economy. So he can create a crisis situation so he can destroy America, that is the only thing transparent about this admin.

Because there really isn't any reason to do what he did unless that was his intention, and of course Clinton's "work-fare" worked awesomely well. Why get rid of something that works.

Hopefully this will get out, not betting on it, because Obama will be even more exposed.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


Yup. Don't count on any of this getting to the public through the MSM. They're too concerned with brown nosing Obama to actually get the truth out.