Welfare Reform Act of 1996...

[nickshepDEM]

Also known as the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996."

The bill was hammered out in a compromise with the Republican-controlled Congress, and many Democrats were critical of Clinton's decision to sign the bill. In fact, it emerged as one of the most controversial issues for Clinton within his own party.

One of the bill's provisions was a time limit. Under the law, no person could receive welfare payments for more than five years, consecutive or nonconsecutive.

Another controversial change was transferring welfare to a block grant system, i.e. one in which the federal government gives states "blocks" of money, which the states then distribute under their own legislation and criteria. Some states simply kept the federal rules, but others used the money for non-welfare programs, such as subsidized childcare (to allow parents to work) or subsidized public transportation (to allow people to travel to work without owning cars).

Explain yourself! ;)

[gumby]

1. Signing that piece-o-crap

was a bigger stain on Clinton than the one on the Blue Dress.

[Skink]

2. Personal Responsibility = minimum wage.

Maybe less.

[nickshepDEM]

3. Why?

[gumby]

26. After thinking about your question,

I am assured that I can not answer and still remain within the rules of this board.

[mntleo2]

71. I can Tell You Why

I have worked on this issue for over 10 years. I have lobbied it, talked it over with legislators, rallied, you name it.

One of the main problems with Welfare DEformed is that they say ANY job, no matter how dead end, no matter how badly paid, no matter how poorly regulated is somehow "better". You try and support yourself, much less a kid ,on minimum wage, ok? Then ask me again why. Most adults cannot support themselves on minimum wage.

They do not allow education, even for high school dropouts, and you tell ME what jobs in the U.S. have a livable wage for even college graduates now days? Education IS possible, but most DSHS headquarters tell their case workers to discourage it, and even lie about it if they have to, but most of all DO NOT GIVE OUT ANY INFORMATION FREELY. If the recipient knows about a program, that is grounds for knowing how to work the system and have them investigated for welfare fraud (thus making the recipient a criminal for asking if they cannot afford legal assistance or there is none in their area).

It is all about how we define "work". In essence the Personal Responsibility Act says the *only* "work" an American now does is work a corporate sponsored paid job, that a minimum wage job is "better" than actually being a parent, which is now defined as "doing nothing" and that a child is better off in an institutionalized setting than home with a parent ~ from the age of three months on. All that time your mom stayed home to raise you? She was doing absolutely nothing, you are not worth her time like a sweatshop Mcjob would have been! If she dumped you off at daycare as soon as she could, well you were better off there then you were at home with her anyway, weren't you? God did not make daycares for nothin'! Come on now, none of you think these laws were made only for the POOR and not for you, do you? Don't you know these laws pertain to everyone, even YOU???? If you do not realize this law pertains to all of us, then you need to take a civics class that how the laws of this land apply to everyone, especially laws dealing with so-called "social" structure, and then you will learn that all Americans should be under the same law of the land.

In an indirect way Welfare DEformed is saying the "only" people who contribute to this society are corporations. you do "nothing" when you contribute to your community, schools, neighbors or take care of extended family. Before welfare Deformed, the budget for this was attached to the Social Security Act and was considered an "entitlement". Now it is no no longer an entitlement ~ but you can bet your sweet bippy that KBR and Halliburton are considered entitled to literally MILLIONS of times more tax money than welfare ever collected (welfare was around 4% of the federal budget when the act was passed, while the military at that time in peacetime was over 47%).

This was just a way to give more money to corporations as it is now codified that We The People do not "do anything" for this country unless we are working for these corporations, who are the only ones "doing anything".

The Personal Responsibility Act was signed into law by people who are anything BUT responsible themselves. Besides being bought off by big business for votes, they give tax breaks for lazy billionaire heirs who are too busy sunning themselves in the Mediterranean to do a days work, they allow these businesses who are getting all these tax breaks to not pay a cent themselves, they vote themselves raises in the middle of the night every year and take millions from lobbyists. Meanwhile the welfare mom cannot even pay her rent and pays on the average almost 17% of her income to taxes herself.

This are a few reasons why. I could also talk about how it has actually cost us about twice as much to make single mothers work for a wage rather than let her stay home and actually BE a parent, but that is for another time. It is a math lesson you may never forget! LOL

Any questions???

My 2 cents

Cat In Seattle <---excuse me if it sounds like there is a bit of sarcasm but I have never been so frustrated as to see reasonable people so elitist in their thinking that they actually believed this law was for the only poor and not them.

[Totally Committed]

9. I totally agree.

It's the one thing about Clinton's Presidency I can't forgive. And, in my heart it will never be a great Presidency because of it.

His legacy is tarnished more by this than the Monica fiasco.

TC

[DemInDistress]

4. 5 years was too little...

I enjoyed the help from PA while I was a member.The meager gov't handout didn't enrich my life but it helped keep me out of trouble.I
don't object to work-fare since the money was there along with food stamps and Medicaid,its the 5 yr. limit that got me.Today I'm broke with no job and little hope,I see trouble on the horizon.

[Eric J in MN]

5. I'm against the 5 year limit, too.

Some people are out of luck for much longer.

[meow2u3]

12. The 5-year lifetime limit is too harsh

Maybe a 5-year limit for every 10-year period would be a bit less harsh, or an automatic waiver of the limit in the event of recession would be more humane.

[TheGunslinger]

11. 3 years is long enough, imo. Here are my thoughts >>>

The way I see welfare reform as needing to be is like this. A three-year, graduated benefit program.

The first year, the recipient receives full benefits including child care costs. This would allow the person to attend school full-time to learn a trade, vocation, whatever. Or, if the person was just fired or laid off, a year gives them time to find another job.

After the first year, if employment hasn't kicked in, benefits remain the same. This helps the person to continue looking for work or to continue their education. If the person has a job but still needs to stay in school, benefits would be reduced by half of the amount the person was making. This would let them increase their standard of living but also reduce the government's burden.

After two years, a person would have, at the least, an associate's degree and should be able to find a job making a living wage. Or, if the person wasn't in school but was fired from a prior job and was still job hunting, this 2nd year of benefits keeps them alive and able to afford housing, food, clothes, etc.

After three years, benefits are reduced to half. This gives the person who just completed some job training a bit of a boost as they enter the work force and find the need for a bit of assistance for things like transportation, childcare, or medical treatment (until insurance kicks in from their job, which, admittedly, is getting harder to get in today's corporate world). For the person who was still looking for a job, two years should be enough and the reduced benefits would act like a wakeup call to either move to a city that has better opportunities or look for a different line of work.

After the third year, benefits are ended as the person should be gainfully employed at that point.

At that point, private charity would be the place for a person needing further assistance, not the goverment.

Welfare should be a hand-UP, not a hand-OUT.

Now, for someone disabled, things are different and they should still be allowed to draw benefits if they are unable to provide for themselves.


I don't feel the U.S. should be socialistic in terms of welfare. It's too costly and three years should definitely be enough time to find a new job.

[Eric J in MN]

13. We live in a society in which corporations are outsourcing

as many jobs as they can.

Ideally, people should be able to find a job within 3 years, but it's not an ideal sociaety.

[TheGunslinger]

15. I found a job in the IT market in 7 months back when the IT market

was total crap.

I had other opportunities I could have pursued but I didn't want to and in some ways I wish I had.

Places like Monster, Hotjobs, Dice, etc. aren't in danger of going under.

[Eric J in MN]

18. maybe you have more skills than most people

It doesn't mean people with fewer skills should suffer.

There is a lot of wealth in America.

It's the distribution which is the problem.

[TheGunslinger]

19. No more so than others in my line of work.

If you dont' find a job after 6 months, it's time to consider a backup job for survival. If you don't find a job after a year, it's time to consider getting job training or other education to get a job in a different line of work.

I don't know anything of your situation but I find it incredibly hard to believe anyone cannot find a job within 3 years' time.

[Eric J in MN]

20. I wasn't talking about myself (nt)

nt

[Time for change]

47. What about single mothers?

How can they work and take care of their children at the same time?

[hyphenate]

50. Then they need to find creative

ways of funding child care, or they should keep mother's hours at jobs. OR, like my mom, work graveyard shift until the kids are old enough to take care of themselves.

There are ways. MANY ways. Or take classes in child care and get themselves certified as child care workers. Then they can take care of their own kids, and take care of others and get paid for it.

My sister has used that shitty excuse for many years. And it hasn't helped her drug habit or her alcoholism one bit, and as a result, she is a 44 year old junkie with nothing to fall back on. She's a tramp, and she is as useless as possible.

[Time for change]

53. But

Do you think that most jobs would allow for the mother to pay for child care and still have enough money left over to provide a livable environment for the children?

And, what do you think is the likelihood that the other kinds of jobs that you propose would actually be available?

[TheGunslinger]

54. Allow me to repeat myself >>>

The first year, the recipient receives full benefits including child care costs. This would allow the person to attend school full-time to learn a trade, vocation, whatever. Or, if the person was just fired or laid off, a year gives them time to find another job.

After the first year, if employment hasn't kicked in, benefits remain the same. This helps the person to continue looking for work or to continue their education. If the person has a job but still needs to stay in school, benefits would be reduced by half of the amount the person was making. This would let them increase their standard of living but also reduce the government's burden.

After two years, a person would have, at the least, an associate's degree and should be able to find a job making a living wage. Or, if the person wasn't in school but was fired from a prior job and was still job hunting, this 2nd year of benefits keeps them alive and able to afford housing, food, clothes, etc.

After three years, benefits are reduced to half. This gives the person who just completed some job training a bit of a boost as they enter the work force and find the need for a bit of assistance for things like transportation, childcare, or medical treatment (until insurance kicks in from their job, which, admittedly, is getting harder to get in today's corporate world). For the person who was still looking for a job, two years should be enough and the reduced benefits would act like a wakeup call to either move to a city that has better opportunities or look for a different line of work.

[dorktv]

65. Companies are not very nice about sick time so a single mom

will get fired for taking care of her more important kid.

[rman]

81. Sure -some- people are bound to get the few IT jobs that are left.

But there's only so much work to be done, and ever more of it is done by cheap labor outside the US.

[AJH032]

23. I agree n/t

[gumby]

29. Glad you have it all figured out.

Perhaps you might run for the position of Supreme Ruler. ? . ?

[TheGunslinger]

61. How's the weather from up on your high horse?

I seem to see my original reply in this thread as stating simply my opinion. I neglected to see where I said it was the only option and must be followed by all legislators.

But, fwiw, feel free to provide some CONSTRUCTIVE input as to how you think the welfare reform should work.

I'm sitting on pins and needles waiting.

[bread_and_roses]

32. There are not enough living wage jobs.

And some people are never going to be able to get an Associates Degree. And nothing wrong with that, either. Last I heard, we still had a need for plenty of labor that requires no advanced education. And unfortunately, much of that labor does not pay a living wage.

Some people have too many challenges of one sort or another to ever be self-sufficient. Should they starve, or be forced to beg from charity? Why? We certainy can afford them - or could, if we wern't spending every cent on more war machines. But even with that, the type of "welfare" you are talking about is not very expensive. Health Care is expensive, and the most expensive segment of that is for the elderly and disabled.

Even if we could magically transform every person into a skilled, job-ready worker, there are not enough jobs for every one. So why should we penalize and even demonize individuals who are forced to rely on some form of Public benefit? We have an economic system that uses cheap, disposable labor, and then punish those who perform that function in the economy.

[hyphenate]

51. Welfare fraud is rampant

and I find it a personal affront to be paying for people who abuse the welfare system. If there were standards in place, and if there were enough people to keep fraud from happening, it would be one thing, but I've seen enough of it in my days to be totally put off by someone who lives day in and day out, trying to find ways to stay on the public dole without every having to work a day in their lives.

[bread_and_roses]

57. A source for "welfare fraud is rampant?"

And distinguish between types of fraud. There have been quite large frauds perpetrated on Medicaid - by Providers.

I have worked in the Human Service system - including a stint at DSS - for many years. The Welfare "fraud" I've encountered is usually the result of a recipient not understanding the complicated application and rules OR of someone making a very few bucks on the side, since it is virtually impossible to meet ordinary daily needs on Welfare alone.

I don't recall anything I've ever read supporting a significant cost resulting from recipient fraud.

There will always be a few people - in ANY system - who commit real "fraud." There will always be a few individuals so unable to be self-sustaining or so inured to dire poverty as way of life that they will be content to remain on welfare.

Again I say, so what? Is this a reason to deny food and shelter - even school supplies to the children - to that Disposable Labor Pool of which our Corporate Masters are so enamored that the "temporary worker" sector of the economy keeps growing by leaps and bounds?

The vast majority of people on "Welfare" want to get off - not only because it is impossible to live with any dignity or even comfort on welfare but because most humans naturally want to feel productive, to feel connected to their society as valued members.

So what if we support a few of the "undeserving" if that means that we don't allow huge numbers of our fellow-citizens to live in Third World conditions, as they do in our Inner Cities (and often our hidden poor in rural areas as well)? Where there are no jobs for them, their children often don't even have sufficient books or pencils, and the only Upward Mobility is through drug dealing?

I count a few "cheats" as well worth the price of not condemning millions of children to utter poverty and their families to desperation.

Oligarchy promotes crime and social instability. For the Corporatist own future, they should support providing a minimum level of comfort for even "the least among us." They are too short-sighted to do so.

[raccoon]

69. "Welfare fraud is rampant"--how do you know that? Source? nt

[mntleo2]

75. Can You Give Some Statistics On That?

The numbers I know about is that welfare fraud was far from rampant. In 1996, it was less than 1% of the entire population, it is far less now since getting on welfare at this time takes a Philadelphia lawyer and a whole lot of chutzpah.

As I said before in this forum, welfare for low income people is now about 2% of the entire budget(in 1996 it was 4%). Military and Corporate welfare take up literally thousands of times more of our budget and our tax dollar, while corporation do not pay a cent of taxes with little oversight, and the poor pay around 30% of these taxes. Tell me who are the most guilty of "robbing" this country , when corporate welfare queens do far more damage than any small time welfare mother who lets her boyfriend live with her so she can actually afford her rent, some toilet paper,laundry soap, and maybe even a pair of shoes for her kid?

Just asking...

Cat in Seattle

[rman]

82. So you rather also not pay for people who don't abuse the system,

but who really need it?

Do you think there are more people abusing the system, or more people who really need it and not abuse it?

[TheGunslinger]

56. Three years is enough for someone, who's able, to find a job.

After that, they can look to charity or other private forms of assistance.

By making welfare a temporary hand-UP program with strict requirements, it would get a lot of CAPABLE people either off their asses and into jobs or, at the least, off of the government dole.

[bread_and_roses]

58. You can't get "off your ass" for a job that doesn't exist

And what's this "off their asses" anyway? Do you seriously think that most of the people who receive "Welfare" want to sit around "on their asses" all their lives? Guess what? Most work, at least some of the time, when they can get work. That has always been the case. Even before the misnamed "Welfare Reform" the average stay on Welfare for mothers was short - less than two years if I remember correctly. But all too often, the nature of the jobs they could get meant 6 months work, a stint on Welfare while searching for another job, another few months work, Welfare again, etc. etc.

The problem is what it has always been - too few jobs with Living Wages, with enough hours, with health benefits. Too many jobs that are Temporary, or that replace low-wage workers when their kids get sick or the car breaks down. The juggling act performed by most low-wage workers is so precarious that often one "emergency" destroys the fragile balance.

NOt to mention insufficient Day CAre spots, un-affordable by low wage workers anyway unless subsidized by "Welfare," inadequate Public Transportation for those without cars, and too few slots for those eligible for subsidized housing, subsidized Day Care, WIC (never, I believe fully funded), and the difficulty of accessing Food Stamps and HEAP (both with higher income limits than "Welfare" and for which many working people in our low-wage economy are eligible) if one is working days.

All "Welfare Reform" did is create another desperate Labor Pool (mothers of young children, who no longer have the safety net provided by AFDC) for exploitation.

The phrases, "a hand up not a hand out" is a Right Wing phrase, and the accusation of poor people sitting around "on their asses" are part of the demonization of the poor and low-income so successfully perpetuated since Reagan.

There are not enough jobs. Certainly not enough skilled, Living Wage jobs. Why should we penalize whichever people are inevitably left out? If not them, someone else.

[TheGunslinger]

60. Sounds like a bunch of excuses, to me

Sorry, but that's how I see it.

As I wrote in another post, if a family can come to America with no money and not speaking any English and then they can find work and take care of themselves, there's nothing stopping the average American from doing the same.

[bread_and_roses]

66. Are there, or are there not, enough Living Wage jobs?

What "it sounds like" to you is really not relevant.

The real unemployment level, in everything I've read, is generally estimated to be at least twice the "official" number. If there is a 5% "official" unemployment, that means one in ten people who could/want to work are unemployed.

If you are a low-wage, unskilled worker you will often tend to move in and out of the unemployed group, depending on your employer AND factors in your own life.

Now, for a single individual, education for a better job can take them out of that pool and into better paid and more stable work. However, that does not solve the structural unemployment. So, for everyone who climbs out of poverty via education, someone else falls in via job loss.

A Janitor, for instance, who worked at the same factory for twenty years and made a living wage by virtue of longevity. The factory closes - outsourced, maybe - and now, if s/he get hired somewhere else, the wage will be the going starting rate - and in our low-wage economy, that may well be just above minimum. Now s/he's in Poverty. And that's a good outcome. Maybe s/he can't find a job. So s/he ends up on Welfare, working on and off for a Temp agency.

So why, given that the economy makes a certain level of unemployment inevitable, are we so eager to penalize and make suffer those who happen to be in that pool at any given time? Why do we make them beg for food at Food Banks? What does it matter if some of them never work? That just means there is a job for someone else.

All we are doing by individualizing the "blame" is denying the cost of Capitalism, denying the cost of Corporate Welfare, denying the vicious and inexcusable inequalities that permit one child to go to a school with a computer on every desk and another to go to a school without enough books for the students. Blaming the individual for a societal problem.

Our precious "tax dollars" would be much better spent making sure that no child grows up in deep poverty.

Meanwhile, on the everyday, practical, individual level, decent Day Care, here in the low-cost of living area where I live, is at least $120.00 week. Do you think that you could pay that on a Minimum Wage job?

And as for that family who can't speak any English, my understanding is that one must be "sponsored" by someone who will provide to get into this Country, unless one is part of certain Refugee groups who are brought here under Official auspices - in which case it is my understanding that one receives some sort of "Welfare." However, this is not my area of knowledge, someone else may know better.

[TheGunslinger]

67. I think you're missing some of what I've been saying

You harp back on unskilled, uneducated (or undereducated) workers.

Apparently you missed my original reply where I say two years of full welfare benefits while someone either goes to school or receives job training. If a CAPABLE adult cannot get themselves into a position to enter a job market within two years, I don't see why the government needs to continue paying for them. A CAPABLE adult not able to find work within two to three years is, in my opinion, lazy or suffering from too-high expectations.

As for the unemployment rate, the household survey showing 5% isn't the best indicator of true unemployment. That's why I look to the Labor Participation Rate and the "marginally attached workers". that adds another 1.4 million people (which is only another 0.4%).
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

I have no idea where you get your facts that real unemployment is 10%!

[bread_and_roses]

73. It is "unskilled, uneducated (or undereducated) workers" who are being

forced to stay in the Labor Market under Welfare Reform. That was the point, sorry if I'm unclear. I think it's great that your proposed plan offers Education/training to everyone - that's certainly more than the current system allows.

But lets take your best case scenario - every adult in the US who is not totally disabled has been trained/educated for a skilled job that will pay a Living Wage. And, magically, all personal challenges that can make someone a marginal worker have been corrected. Day Care is in Place. Adequate transportation. All barriers have been removed.

Is there a Living Wage Job for all of those people - even for all subtracting those who might be between jobs voluntarly?

Not from what I read. So, is unemployment and poverty purely an individual failing, for which we should punish individuals by depriving and stigmatizing them and most importantly, their children?

And if we are to keep children from growing up in a perpetuating "cycle/culture of Poverty" (both terms are used, sometimes interchangably) how are we to do that while leaving their parents in deep poverty?

As for the "real" unemployment, I was simply lazily using a figure I remembered reading, and I stipulated that this was what I have read as an estimate, not that it is a "fact". My understanding is that once one has not "actively looked for work" in the past four weeks, one is no longer counted as "unemployed." Also, my understanding is that if a person works one day in a week that person is counted as "Employed."

My understaning of the "labor participation rate" is that it includes those who are working - which I presume would include that one-day Staffkings assignment that makes you count as "Employed" for DOL stats - and also those looking for a job. How does that reduce what may be the "real" as opposed to the "official" UIB rate? Or perhaps I misunderstand the definition, or your point?

[eridani]

78. 2/3 of the people in the prison-industrial complex are de facto

--unemployed. We live in the world's largest prison camp, which helps keep the nominal unemployment rates down.

[eridani]

77. Oh, of course

You babysit for the women for minimum wage. Sorry I misunderstood you there.

[loyalsister]

44. That timeline is way off

Two years for a person who has children?
A single parent may not fly through an Associate's degree program.
Beyond that any extra work efforts to improve job training might extend the time required.
That timeline also disregards the things that go wrong in people's live. A child gets very ill the parent may need to take a semester off.
We all put goals in place, but timelines go to hell all the time over the hands that life deals. This is a very bad way to make policy. Some of those bad hands are punishment enough. Winding up homeless on top of it is no way for the government to offer a "Hand-up"

[TheGunslinger]

55. You're talking about the very few exceptions that may arise

It's all about personal responsibility.

Look at the MANY people that come to this country speaking NO English and with a family in tow. They manage to find ways to make a living.

Many Americans are spoiled and expect too much to be given to them without having to work for it.

I've seen some of my own family members working two jobs to keep their heads above water as they don't want to go on the government teet. Maybe a matter of pride in those cases.

I've also seen family members, including myself, that went on food stamps and received utility payment assistance from gov't agencies until they got back on their feet.

People need to stop expecting things to happen and get out there and make things happen. That's what built this country!

[eridani]

79. Welfare built this country

Starting with the free land doled out to people after the government took it from the Indians.

[mntleo2]

74. Three Years Is Not Enough Time

I don't feel the U.S. should be socialistic in terms of welfare. It's too costly and three years should definitely be enough time to find a new job.

In 1996, the Department of Social and Health Services was 4% of the budget. Today it ia about 2%. In comparison. in 1996, the military budget took over 47%, during peacetime . This was during a time when corporations paid 8% of the taxes in this country, the upper class paid around 10% and the rest of us paid the rest (82%). Of the 'rest of us' the poor paid around 40% of these taxes, or around 30% of the entire taxes. Now the upper income and corporations pay 1% and the rest of us are paying the 99% of these taxes.

If you feel that the most vulnerable people, mothers and their children are "too costly" to support, then is it also "too costly" to support a war machine like that, which btw, takes much more of our budget today with few if any oversights? Why do you feel the work of raising children is "too costly" to support when making killing machines is not? Why is working for minimum wage "better" than raising the next generation, working within our communities and schools as well as taking care of extended family, which women have traditionally done since the beginning of time?

Perhaps you are drinking the koolaid that corporations are the only ones that contribute to this society and working for money is "doing something" while other work is "doing nothing". With this thinking, when your mother raised you, she did nothing and it was better that she dumped you off at an institution so she could go work her McJob than to actually BE a parent. Do you actually think that if she could not even afford to pay the rent, much less feed you on wages like that, which are the jobs that welfare parents get, this is "better"???? Since the majority of the kids fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are poor, raising them "did nothing" for this country, only the wages their parents made "did anything". Calling unpaid work 'doing nothing", which is traditionally "women's work" is myopic and sexist. Not that you are any different than many people (especially men), still it is this sort of thinking that perpetuates the military industrial complex and corporate welfare, while denigrating the real work that actually does enrich us.

As for believing three years is enough time to find a job: Most low income parents need job skills, education, and training. Tell me of any school that would allow anyone to get perhaps a high school degree and college in three years, much less help them find a job with a livable wage. Read Barbara Ehrinrieh's most recent book where she traces professional people's job search, which took on the average two years. Then tell me three years is enough to find a job with a livable wage. Do you actually think all 3 month old babies should go into daycare? This is the way it is now with welfare moms, We know a child at three years old is often still too young for that. Add to this enough time for training and getting a job, and you will see three years is nothing.

Believe me, I think that working outside the home should be a choice for parents, but it might be something to consider that this work, the raising of the next generation, or taking care of our elders, and contributing to their communities is also as worthwhile, perhaps even more worthwhile than working some crummy McJob that only enriches a few greedy people who already have way more than then actually need. If you do not have children, tell me, who is going to take care of YOU when you are old? Do you really want an ignorant, resentful, starving person who considers taking care of you just another crappy McJob? Then you need to consider that our government should be about supporting our social structure, providing education and making things better for ALL, it should not be a war machine that only enriches a few corporate welfare queens, which is the way it is now.

My 2 cents

Cat In Seattle

[Zynx]

6. Let me first say this from the point of view of Wisconsin.

In Wisconsin, which was the "model" for national Welfare Reform, we definitely needed reform. The previous system was inefficient and expensive. My parents saw this first hand and they have lived in Wisconsin for 30 years, most of that in the Milwaukee area that was a poster-child for welfare excesses. However, we went too far in curbing our welfare system and many are facing destitution. These issues require finesse and nuance. They can't be done by ideology. I think the same applies for national reform. There was such a strong backlash against the old Welfare system that we went too far.

[nickshepDEM]

7. kick

[formernaderite]

8. It's where Clinton lost me...

of course Morris will argue that he had to sign this in order to win. But look at all we lost because of it.

[Totally Committed]

10. me, too. eom

TC

[ulysses]

25. same here. n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

46. Clinton could've vetoed it and still easily won

Bob Dole wasn't going to beat Clinton, it simply wasn't going to happen.

[formernaderite]

63. Agreed....and from that we can surmise

that Clinton has no morals or ethics...power was all, and he wasn't about to risk losing it. Or....he really wanted to pass welfare reform...and is still repulsive.

[Hippo_Tron]

70. Clinton confuses the hell out of me

Like Jimmy Carter he was a brilliant President. He was also a MUCH more skilled politician than Jimmy Carter. He also came from a near impovershed background.

I have a hard time believing that Clinton truly supported something like Welfare Reform. At the same time I have an incredibly hard time believing that somebody as smart as he was would honestly believe that signing that bill would mean that he would lose the election.

I do believe that Clinton has morals and ethics deep inside him somewhere but I just don't know where the hell they went while he was President.

That being said, Clinton's penis is more ethical than Shrub's entire body.

[Hippo_Tron]

14. I wouldn't have so much of a problem with Welfare Reform IF...

We had universal healthcare, affordable child care, good public education, affordable and livable housing, and a minimum wage that was a living wage. If we had all of these things we could limit welfare to disabled people or for harsh economic times.

I agree that Welfare is a flawed system, almost any system is a flawed system. But it is also a product of the fact that our government has no interest in helping out the poorest Americans.

[sandnsea]

17. Welfare reform moved in that direction

Before welfare reform, you couldn't get health care for your child without being on AFDC. Or child care, job training, etc. You got a job, you lost the rest of the benefits. If we had a living wage and universal health care, we wouldn't see as many of the problems created by welfare reform.

[loyalsister]

45. Exactly!

It would not really even be necessary if we had those things.
Disability disaster insurance for people who aquire disabilities is what people essentially get, and it needs to be pointed out a time or two. For people who don't have private disability insurance, they are actually covered by SSI or SSDI, Medicare and Medicaid if something happens.

[sandnsea]

16. On the other side

It also disconnected health care assistance from cash payments. Put more money into child care, job training, job assistance programs, etc. Most people are on welfare for less than two years anyway. Alot of what welfare reform did is what women had been asking for in order for them to get off of welfare.

[AJH032]

22. good point n/t

[Rodger Dodger]

33. Welfare? What is it really!

Why does government refer to compassion and charitable giving, as welfare? It doesn't make anyone well and it surly isn't fare, or equitable.

Loosing a job, in labor terms, is tantamount to the death penalty. My god, if the poor had to rely on christian charity they would all starve to death. I believe it was Scrooge who said, "Let them starve and reduce the surplus population," when asked to contribute to the poor.

Is compassionate conservatism simply a euphemisms? A kind word to disguise governments double speak? Because when push comes to shove government and many citizens blame the victims. How convenient to avoid ones christian obligation. "Whatever you do to the least of my brotheren you do unto me," it's in the Bible.

[sandnsea]

34. What's your point?

We have unemployment insurance. We have welfare. We have food stamps and WIC and energy assistance. They're all fairly easy to get. There is a safety net for moms and working adults.

Low income housing, child care and health assistance is available, although not near to the extent it needs to be. That is not a welfare reform issue, that is an underemployment and crap wages issue. Most people who qualify for these programs are working. I think if somebody is working, they should earn enough so that they don't need any programs.

The problem of the physically and emotionally disabled is a whole other issue. I would say that these people have been harmed more than anybody else in our country, at least right now. Yet when we talk about poverty and welfare reform, we hardly ever consider these people. It's almost always about the moms.

I didn't say anything about letting anybody starve, only what welfare reform was intended to address. There was very little help for childless adults before welfare reform, there's very little help for them now. Welfare reform didn't send these people out into the streets.

[bread_and_roses]

43. Welfare, Food Stamps, and Energy Assistance are not easy to get

It has always been an arduous and demeaning process to apply for "welfare" (cash assistance) and even more so since Welfare reform. Since the Block Grants the State has put enormous pressure on workers to deny people to keep the "rolls" down. But even under best case scenarios, given a good and non-judgemental worker, the process is demeaning. It is also extremely time-consuming, and often confusing for anyone who has limited literacy.

Here in our County in NY one might have to stand in line for an hour and then wait for hours longer to apply for HEAP (energy assistance).

Even WIC, a friendlier program, requires appointments that can be difficult for working moms to arrange.

Food Stamps is also "friendlier" (note that both WIC and Food Stamps are Federal Programs - as AFDC used to be) but even Food Stamps requires
9 -5 appointments, again difficult for working people (many of whom are eligible but do not access the program) and disclosing every bit of information about your household, finances, etc.

UIB is, of course, not at all easy to get. It requires a waiting period and individuals are often denied and must appeal to get it.

You are absolutely right about the lack of help for childless adults, and that they were not helped before welfare reform either. Unless they are "officially" disabled and eligible for SSI (a kind of Federal "welfare" administered through the SS program) they are indeed left out in the cold. Here in NY our State Constitution requires that there be assistance for them, but there are draconian requirements including a 45 day waiting period before cash benefits will be disbursed. I understand that in some States there is no cash assistance at all for such individuals.

And I certainly agree that Living Wages, Universal Health Care would go a long way toward rectifying the need for Welfare at all. In essence, programs like Food Stamps, which are available to low-income workers, are another government subsidy for Low-wage employers.

I certainly agree with you that it is low wages we should be fighting, not welfare recipients.

[TheGunslinger]

68. Sounds like more excuses and some anecdotal evidence

Anecdotal evidence cannot be used to generalize the nationwide situation.


9-5 appts can be met by someone with a job. You're trying to tell me that people with 9-5 jobs never have their car serviced? Never go to the doctor? Never pick up their kid(s) from school? There are lunch breaks, sick days, vacation days, flex time, etc. There are ways for people to get it done.

As for trouble getting benefits, I had zero problems getting food stamps and utility bill assistance a few years ago.

[bread_and_roses]

72. Low wage workers often have no sick days, vacation

days and certainly no flex time. They quite often have no car, which can make getting to and from the DSS office in a reasonable time from a job location impossible. No one who's ever been through that system ever counts on an appointment taking only an hour - experience has taught them that at minimum they will probably spend an entire morning or afternoon there.

If one does not receive "welfare" (ie, cash assistance) but remains eligible for other supports such as Food Stamps and Medicaid, a person might have to make three trips to DSS - one for Food Stamps, one for Medicaid, and one for HEAP. That's a lot of appointments for a low-wage worker. And having to be selective about dates/times for an appointment could result in a long wait. This is one of the reasons
that programs like Food Stamps are known to be under-utilized.

Obstacles/Barriers to both employment and access to benefits have been studied. My examples are anecdotal, but the problems have been documented.

The nationwide situation is apparent in our Poverty rates, particularly for children, in the data on Real Wages, Living Wages, and the Institutionalized Racism quite evident in the % in Poverty in different Demographic groups.

It is a very good thing that you did not have difficulty getting the help that you required. As I noted earlier, Food Stamps, being a Federal Program tends to be "friendlier," it is not costing the County money. However, you yourself queried anecdotal evidence, while basing your own on your solitary experience? My anecdotal examples are
based on 25+ years working with low-income and poor families, and on extensive reading during those years. I've walked hundreds of people through the process for obtaining benefits. The examples are meant as simply that - examples.

http://www.cbpp.org/12-10-04sfp.htm

<snip> STATE POLICIES TO ASSIST WORKING-POOR FAMILIES
Improve access to support services. The rules andprocedures that govern programs such as Medicaid, children’s health insurance, TANF, and child care are often complex and uncoordinated. This makes it
difficult for families that are eligible for multiple programs to receive all the benefits to which they are entitled. <snip>

http://www.cssny.org/pbrc/
<snip> The Public Benefits Resource Center (PBRC) untangles the complexities of the government benefit system by providing technical assistance to social service professionals and direct assistance to families and individuals seeking help.

PBRC maintains information on over 70 government benefit programs for diverse populations <snip>

A study done in Oregon reflects some of the barriers for Food Stamps - which are the same barriers as for other Programs.

http://www.welfarelaw.org/contents/oregon_fs_activists.htm
<snip> Oregon Action started its project by identifying the barriers that stood between needy households and Food Stamps. Based on interviews with Food Stamp applicants, the organizers identified 26 barriers, including the following:

• the Food Stamp office did not provide families in crisis with expedited Food Stamps, as required by law;

• the Food Stamp office did not provide sufficient translation services for limited English speakers;

• the Food Stamp application was 16-pages long;

• Food Stamp workers were rude to applicants and often made inappropriate comments about their looks, lifestyles and life choices;

• Food Stamp offices were open only from 9:00 to 5:00 on weekdays, making it hard for working families to apply for benefits.

These are the same problems that are seen around the Country.

[AJH032]

21. I support Clinton on Welfare Reform, just not on NAFTA

That's not to say that I think the Welfare Reform act was perfect, without flaws (even Clinton said he didn't completely support it but with the Republican congress he had to compromise), but I do agree with the notion that welfare should be a second chance, not a "way of life" (unless absolutely necessary). The only major thing I differed with Clinton on is NAFTA.

[hippiechick]

24. Turned me from a Clinton/Gore volunteer to a Green.

I understand Bill compromising to get some of his more major reforms done, while balancing the budget, but this Welfare crap was test-piloted in Wisconsin under then-Gov Tommy Thompson where I was a single mom/college student at the time, and the POS policy was not only brutal, but a failure.


:mad:

[gumby]

28. Excuse me, but

Fuck Tommy Thompson. He made his national "identity" on the backs of poor women. That's the only "National" thing he had going for him.

Tommy's welfare program paid his cronies VERY handsomely for cutting off aid to those in need.

The ONLY thing on the positive side of "welfare reform" is that the neo-cons and neo-fascists can't really use it as a wedge issue anymore. After all, THEY are the ones who supposedly "reformed" welfare. So now they can't continue to complain about those Cadillac driving single mothers.

Why is it that the neo-cons and neo-fascists browbeat and shame middle-class and above $ women (in other words, professional women or women married to wealthy men) to stay at home and raise their children while at the same time, the neo-cons and neo-fascists use the federal government to force poor women to leave their children - who knows where - to preform slave-wage labor? Answer that one and you can buy a clue.

[sandnsea]

35. Excuse me, but

Me, my sister and my sister-in-law all had to leave our children and go back to work. We all have husbands who work. But we worked to stay off government programs. The disparity between wages and the cost of living is the problem, not whether there is a big enough welfare check.

[gumby]

36. Well, if you can't be "successful" enough

to spend time with your children, then what are you bitching about? What? Do you want the BIG GOVERNMENT to decide your wages and the cost of living problem?

Perhaps you should be a better budget planner between what you earn and the cost of your lifestyle.

Good thing your children were left behind for you ideology.

[sandnsea]

37. "disparity between wages and cost of living"

What is it that you don't understand about that statement???

[gumby]

38. So, how does a society correct that?

By some "WELFARE" program?

edit: "OUR" government should NOT represent a contest between workers who are being screwed and women with children on welfare. Don't you get it? Let us join together. This country is the wealthiest nation ever on the face of the earth. We should be rejoicing in our ability to provide for our children, not arguing about who gets what.

Don't you get it?

[sandnsea]

39. By wage regulation, duh n/t

[Nederland]

52. Wage regulation is a dead end

When you regulate wages above market levels all you will do is increase unemployment. All you have to do is look at European unemployment rates to see the truth of this. Places like France and Germany have regulated wages so that young people can no longer get jobs, the effect being they have 20%+ unemployment for people under 30. And the net result of that is impoverished youths with nothing better to do than burn cars...

I have no interest in making the US another France.

[bread_and_roses]

42. "should not be a contest between workers and women with children"

Amen to that. Welfare provides so little that I doubt it ever helped to keep a wafe floor above Min, it did, at least for women with children, provide some protection against abuse and exploitation for workers. Before Welfare Reform, single mothers with children under five could leave a job voluntarly without penalty from welfare. No more.

[hippiechick]

41. I don't understand your basis for attacking me ...

... it seems we're in agreement over the failure of W2 both in Wisconsin and at a federal level.

Or are you just always on the offensive ? :shrug:

[sandyd921]

62. You got it!

Why is it that the neo-cons and neo-fascists browbeat and shame middle-class and above $ women (in other words, professional women or women married to wealthy men) to stay at home and raise their children while at the same time, the neo-cons and neo-fascists use the federal government to force poor women to leave their children - who knows where - to preform slave-wage labor? Answer that one and you can buy a clue.

The hypocrisy is nauseating! :puke:

[usregimechange]

27. Needed appropriations to study its effect and committee to...

recommend changes based on findings.

[bread_and_roses]

30. That "reform" is so wrong I hardly know where to start.

First, it was predicated on false assumptions about the nature of most welfare assistance and welfare recipients.

Most of the "good" programs credited to welfare reform were aleady in place in NY State under AFDC. Welfare "reform" actually made them less effective, since it is now so easy to "sanction" someone and the good programs require time and continuity to be effective.

By destroying AFDC, the only real safety net for infants and small children was demolished. Turning the money over to the States has allowed them to impose draconian rules and forced a push to get everyone - regardless of individual circumstances - off welfare.

In NY, mothers with infants as young as three months old are being forced to seek work. Working with an infant is hard if one has lots of support, a job with flexibility for Dr. appointments, Day Care emergencies, etc., and a car to take the child to day care and get yourself to work. Try taking a bus to Day Care, another bus to work, working four hours at your MacDonalds job, then repeating the bus trips. Your four hour work day has turned into an 8 hr. day. Of course, you don't make enough to keep you off assistance, so you're going through all that and still using up part of your five year limit. Not to mention that you won't have a choice of Day Care providers - you'll have to take what is available from DSS, Day Care for which they are paying about as much your entire grant for the month would be if you weren't working.

Thinking about going for an AS degree to get a better job? Well, you'll have to work twenty hours on top of that (yes, lots of students do, but try it when you're a single parent) - two year college is not an "approved" course for benefits - but they'll let you go to Cosmetology school because that is a "job school." (And no slur here on Cosmetologists - it's a hard job that takes a lot of skill. But not that many people actually make enough to live on or support a family at it). Meanwhile, around here our huge health care industry is always looking for various technicians (ultrasound, etc.) - but you need a two-year degree.

At retail and other service jobs, the sorts of routine illness, day care problems, Dr's appointments, that are inevitable when you work and have a small child can cost you your job. And if you get fired, you'll get sanctioned.

In NY, one of the more generous States, a single mother with one child on full assistance would receive less $500 month in cash. And, no, that is not "on top of" rent. The rent has to be paid from that.

And I've not even mentioned those unfortunate enough to need welfare who are not parenting.

All the discussion about "those people" who make welfare "a way of life" etc. are pointless. Yes, there are always a % of the population that would either be content with dire poverty (welfare is far below the official poverty level) or who simply have too many challenges of one sort or another to be self-sufficient. So what? Really, we are a rich enough nation to afford that. It would be less expensive than the huge bureaucracy created to deny people assistance.

We have an economic system that relies on cheap, disposable labor, a Federal Minimum Wage at around $5.00 hr., and lots of lots of service jobs that provide only 20 -30 hrs work at around Minimum wage.

All Clinton's welfare reform did was to create hardships, particularly for mothers, who are forced to try to live and take care of their children at those low-wage jobs.

[Douglas Carpenter]

31. excellent - I wanted to say something about how awful the so-called

"welfare reform" was. But, you already said it.

[xchrom]

40. kicking your remarks.

welfare reform was based on fatasies re: welfare queens the repukes had been harping on since before the reagan years.
it finally built to a boil under clinton, who was whore enough to sign the bill.

reason and rationality have to brought to bear when thinking about and designing assistance for low wage workers and the unemployed in this country.

especially since we probably have developed two generations of undereducated kids in our public schools{again the fault of the repukes}.

welfare to work is not going to work in our current or near future economic climate.

waxing poetic about ''your'' individual work experience and ''i did it why can't they'' has NEVER solved a problem, except for the one individual.

[Odin2005]

48. Welfare "Reform"

Is just more RW "blame the victim" BS mixed in with Social Darwinism.

:puke:

[hyphenate]

49. During my life

I have seen so many abuses of the welfare system, and really and truly believe reform is necessary.

I've seen generations of families live off the dole, and not put themselves into motion to work and earn a living of their own. I've seen people lie about being married, have more and more babies just to bring in extra money, and basically enjoy themselves with what they "bring in" under the system.

I've seen just as much abuse under it for buying things that are not essential. I've seen jewelry, big screen TVs, fancy cars and children still thin and in thrift-store clothing in the same family. I've been women telling the welfare office that their "scum-sucking" husbands have "taken off" and who are, in fact, living in the household and earning incomes. I've seen some women pretty much allowing their boyfriends to stay in the house as well, who will often mistreat the children, neglecting or abusing them. I've seen women and men--capable in every possible way--waiting for a welfare check when the men could be out trying to get work.

I've seen people being turned down for welfare who really DO need it, because someone else is cheating and staying on it. I've heard of women (especially) coming illegally in from Mexico to a US border town to have a baby because they will automatically qualify for welfare as a result. I've read about people being forced off welfare in one state, or being convicted of welfare fraud, and turning around and moving to another state in order to get back on it.

Does this REALLY have to happen? Five years is a damned good long time to be on welfare, and enough time to prepare ANYONE to be able to work in almost any area. If there is something physically or mentally wrong with the person, there should be an effort to switch them to SSI or disability, but not, certainly, back into welfare.

There are too many people out there who need a hand up, and who can't qualify for social programs while there are others who leech from the system without stopping. There are too many homeless people who could use just enough help to qualify for section 8 housing, or who could move into a regular apartment if they could only afford the exorbitant money upfront that is demanded. There are too many people out there who could use a hot meal, and who can't get it. There are too many people who need some sort of medical care that aren't getting it because of people on welfare who certainly have far more going for them.

I know there are some people who will disagree--that's fine; we're all entitled to our opinion on the topic. I've just seen WAY too much to feel sorry for many people on welfare who have other options, and who are too damned lazy, too damned unambitious, and too damned complacent to do something about their situation.

[eridani]

80. This is mainly nonsense invented out of whole cloth

When I was a welfare caseworker in the late 60s, I never saw anything of the kind. What I saw was people mostly working, and getting fired for dealing with family emergencies or laid off during economic downturns. They went on welfare until they could get another job. Exceptions were mentally ill people who were essentially unemployable.

Why not cut the bullshit and just gas them?

[Gormy Cuss]

59. One Size Fits All

That's the fundamental problem with TANF. Whatever the state decides is the path to self-sufficiency is the program, and you must get with it.

I'm all for self-sufficiency programs because most people on assistance would prefer to take care of themselves. The problem is, the level of support necessary is wildly different for recipients of welfare assistance. Any program that has a strict time limit will leave behind some of the neediest.

TANF was built off the 'success' of Tommy Thompson's program in Wisconsin. The dirty little secret of Wisconsin Works is a large part of its success was because of two factors: first and foremost, welfare recipient who could, relocated to other states. Second, the participation burden became so onerous that many eligible residents simply opted out.

The latter is a factor in the 'success' of TANF. Pre-TANF, the take-up rate for eligible individuals and families was over 80%. Under TANF, the enrollment of eligible families has dropped to below 55%.

http://www.jointcenter.org/devolution1/p2_7.htm

[SammyWinstonJack]

64. "Welfare Queens" What a crock!

I was on welfare in the early 70s. It was no picnic and I couldn't wait to get off! I received benefits for me and my two year old son, the total was $237/mo, fifty of which I didn't receive because of the court order child support that I didn't receive and was deducted from my welfare check. So I got a total of $187/mo. Of that I had to buy my food stamps, paid $15 for $60/mo. I was living high off the hog. :rofl: On top of that, I was required to work at a government sponsored program, which I didn't mind. However, I went to work in a college sponsored restaurant program as a waitress in a college commissary and I worked for tips. :rofl: I have to supplement my government paid child care out of my welfare check! Life was good!

[bcoylepa]

76. Read this book

American Dream-Three Women, Ten Kids and A Nations Drive to End Welfare by Jason DeParle
nothing is as it seems in the discussion of Welfare Reform - we took a bad system and made it worse for some people. Until addiction and education are confronted honestly - welfare reform doesn't stand a chance.