It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Welfare Reform?????

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 12:59 PM
I do a lot of reading regarding bills that are passed in our congress so that I have information to make an informed decision. I recently was reading about welfare reform and the stimulus package and this is what I found.......

In 1996 a new bill replaced the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) with a new program that was called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). This new bill led to welfare reform in the mid-90s (the Clinton years) which led to a dramatic reduction in welfare dependency and in child poverty. According to statistics the number of welfare recipients from 1996 to 2005 dropped enormously. For example in Calif. the number dropped from 880,378 in 1996 to 453,819 in 2005 (-48.5%). In Ky. in 1996 the # was 71,264 and in 2005 the number was 33,691 (-52.7%). And the grand total in the US in 1996 was 4,408,508 dropping to 1,870,039 in 2005 (-57.6%) (the source for this information was USA today

So, now that our President pushed and our congress has passed this stimulus bill, lets see what happens in regards to Welfare reform. The stimulus bills will add almost $800 billion in new means-tested welfare spending over the next 10 years. This new spending amounts to about $22,500 for every poor person in the U.S. The cost of the new welfare spending on average amounts to over $10,000 for each family that is paying income tax. The federal government now gives bonuses to states when more people are on welfare.

And now the effect.... In the first year after the stimulus bill, federal welfare spending will explode by greater than 20 % , rising from about $491 billion in FY 2008 to about $601 billion in FY 2009. This 1 year explosion in welfare "reform" will be the largest increase in US history. And this is only the beginning, see the government is always wrong when the make an "educated guess" on costs. See the 10 year cost of this will not be $814 billion but will be closer to $1.34 trillion.

Now let me ask you.... why fix something that wasn't broken? Why spend millions of dollars on a system that was doing good? Why throw this money out to people when there are better things we can do with it? I would be more then happy to keep the $10,000 in tax money for myself and do what I see fit with it rather then have the government take it and disperse it.....

posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 01:24 PM
I had lived in Illinois and my girlfriends family had heard about the welfare benefits in Wisconsin were great from a relative who probably heard it from someone else. I believe the term is welfare migration?

I'm all for a change in the system that doesn't trap or punish people in some way. There's always room to improve the system. The current losses in the economy and jobs etc. does suggest a major number of new and past recipients. So, something has to change. Housing, food, transportation etc. Many people can be put back to work in some way to change the system through housing repairs, new construction for low income at higher building safety standards, maintaining and overhauling transportation with all for lease or rent to own etc. What we need is fresh ideas and positive motivation. The american dream can still get new life, rather than hopelessness.

My thought is some type of work and training credit system, rather than cash or similar cards. I suppose they're already doing that in some form already.

[edit on 19-8-2009 by aleon1018]

posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 01:44 PM
reply to post by aleon1018

Well that was the system that Clinton put into place in 96'. You can received help/welfare but you need to contribute as well. If you don't work, even just part time, then your time on welfare is limited. I think this is a good way for people not to keep taking advantage of the system. But now state will get bonuses for more people being on welfare. why not give bonuses for taking people off of welfare, that same money can be used to start up jobs for these people. It just seems to me like the money is being thrown to the wind......

posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 01:55 PM
I agree completely. Clinton had personal faults, but the country was in good form when he held office.

It also shows that, when governments pull the pudding away from people, it forces them to be more self-reliant. When it coddles, it creates more who feed off the system instead of taking care of themselves.

I'm all for welfare for people who fell on hard times - like the thousands of families across the country that suddenly lost their livelihoods and were thrown to the winds.

Welfare should be in the system to help these people, who don't rely on it all their lives, and just need it to help them through a rough patch.

The amount of people taking advantage of and working the system is appalling.

The people who need don't have, those that don't have, need. - Not always, but most of the time, and growing numbers doesn't instill my faith in the current administration in the slightest.

new topics

top topics

log in