Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffect

anitra.net was one of your sources. As I said, she is a self proclaimed left wing radical and that's her personal web page. Am I wrong?

I don't care if you use her as a source, from reading her page she seems like a smart woman. But whether left or right a biased source is a biased source, and you're a pot calling the kettle black.

 

letlovin

So you mention anitra post but not the CNN or Cato posts?

So lets see I used a right wing source a supposedly liberal source and a self proclaimed left wing source and so I must be the same as someone that only used a second hand right wing source based on a right wing libertarian report.

Hey letlovin I’m a left winger but I read across the boundary of my own views. I know many right wing views because I go out and read them, just as I read the views of many other political viewpoints.

Ok anitra is a self proclaimed left wing political activist, is she being paid by very wealthy groups with vested interests to push her ideas like the people at CNS news, Media Research Center, and Cato?

So now I’ve been called a kettle but still no rational counter argument.

 

Its almost too easy to bash the welfare recipients.

Our Govvy is throwing around money left and right

It is just part of a larger picture of deficit spending.

 

Yeah the poor have always been an easy target. Bash them and take the attention off the real story. They dont have a lobbyist to spin their interests.

 

Yes, I did so because you brought up the op's Cato post but left out his CNN post. See what I'm saying? But this is all taking away from the discussion so I'll drop it.

To the two posts above mine: I don't think anyone is bashing the welfare recipients, but the system that enables them to abuse it.

One of the things that they want to change, is the links in between services. If someone is recieving heating and air assistance, then they qualify for more assistance elsewhere regardless of the need it or not. So they are giving people $1 for heating and cooling assistance, so that they can qualify for more welfare money.

 

I'm not talking about other countries, I'm talking about the United States. Again, know the facts, here they are....

[SIZE=-1]One theme of the 1996 welfare reform is the change in federal funding. Under AFDC, the federal government used to match state expenditure on welfare programs at a specific matching rate. The 1996 welfare reform abandoned open-ended federal matching funding. Instead, each state receives a lump sum of federal funds, roughly the amount the state received in AFDC and AFDC-related funds during 1994-95. To receive this grant, each state must meet a maintenance-of-effort requirement - they must spend at least 75 -80 percent of a state's previous spending for low-income benefits and services. States must also meet other federal requirements, such as work requirements, sanctions, and a cumulative five-year time limit on federal cash assistance. Nationally, TANF lump sum funds to states have totaled about $16.5 billion per year for six years. States are given broader discretion and greater flexibility in using TANF funds and designing programs than under AFDC. [/SIZE]​

[SIZE=-1]The second theme is that federal entitlements to cash welfare were eliminated under TANF. Under the AFDC program, all families whose income fell below state income standards were entitled to receive cash assistance. Now they must meet certain work requirement to be eligible.[/SIZE]​

[SIZE=-1]The essence of the new welfare system is work requirement and the emphasis is placed on helping recipients become self-support through employment. Adult welfare recipients are required to begin work within two years, or a shorter period of time at state discretion. Recipients who fail to meet the work requirement will have their benefits reduced, and more than 30 states have adopted sanction policy that terminates their entire cash TANF benefits. States that do not place a specific percentage of their welfare recipients in work or work preparation programs suffer federal financial penalties. [/SIZE]​

[SIZE=-1]A crucial feature of the 1996 welfare reform is to put five-year lifetime limit on welfare recipients. States may not provide TANF assistance to families that have an adult who has received federal-funded TANF assistance for five years. This feature establishes welfare's temporary nature and pushes recipients to work and leave the program to preserve their lifetime months of eligibility. States may exempt up to 20 percent of their recipients from time limits.[/SIZE]​

[SIZE=-1]Besides work requirement, TANF also encourages family formation by promoting marriage and two-parent families and reducing out-of-wedlock births. States are given more flexibility to serve two-parent families, and those with the highest reduction in their non-marital birth ratio and also reduction in abortion rate are rewarded through the establishment of "illegitimacy bonus." In addition, TANF includes $85 million a year in federal and state financing for "abstinence only" programs for five years.[/SIZE]


http://www.oycf.org/Perspectives2/12_063001/American_poverty_reform.htm​

 

It doesn't say anywhere that you have to take assistance even if you qualify. I'm sure that I qualify for food stamps, but don't take them... I was on the heating assistance, but guess what? The flood took out my furnace, so that's going away too. I need my medical so that one's going to have to stay.


From the perspective of being poor, the problem with the system is there is no "Exit Plan" for those that want to work their way out of the system. Say you are broke, lost your job, the old car is not worth fixing so it goes to the dump... Now you are on assistance. You are allowed 1 car and up to a certain amount of money in the bank at any given time (Usually $1000 or less, varies by state.) You need a good car to get the job in the next town, or further away. You can't get a "good car" for $1000 and feed your family while paying the rent... You take a part time job locally that assistance helped you find, you want to save up for that car so you can get the better job. Bank account get's to $1050... Poof! No more assistance.

Welcome to the cardboard box under the bridge, your family will be so proud of you...

The system is tweaked in a manor that traps people and I think that's done on purpose. Yeah there are some that would just as soon take a "free ride" but that's not everybody that is receiving assistance, I doubt very much that it's even 1/3 or 1/4 of those that are on it that want to stay on it... But how do you get off it once started?

 

Really, bal

Why is it that you continually ignore any answer not supporting your opinion?

Since you obviously missed it, here's my "address" of your argument again:

In the off chance (pfft) that you still refuse to accept that I have "addressed" your arguments or "disagreements", try examining the validity of an opinion supporting the continuation or expansion of a system that has failed -- failed miserably -- for years.

As I asked you previsously (in another thread): Wouldn't you agree that one should always examine the validity of criticism, rather than just accept it as valid? You ignored the question when originally asked -- here's another opportunity.

Wahahaha

Based on most of your arguments, I'd say you've learned little.

And again, and as usual, you imply something was said that wasn't: What I said was that your opinion was "one based on little or nothing more than what you may have read and find to conveniently support your own socialist ideology".

My opinion of the US welfare system and it's utter and complete failure is based on having observed the workings and results of the system from, of all places, the United States. I see the second and third generation welfare recipients -- living in government housing, using the "WICS card", presenting the evergy assistance vouchers, most every day -- I've also seen a $300 purchase of choice meats using "food stamps" and watched the buyer drive away in a $30,000 pickup. Excuse the hell outta me though -- I almost forgot: in your infinite wisdom, you know better of what's best for "the colonies". LOL... George III lives.

The truth of the matter is that the system has failed -- it has failed those it was/is supposedly designed and implemented to help and it has failed those (taxpayers) who funded it. It's time to change it and change it drastically!

 

Excellent points, both!!

The "exit plan" issue is a great example of how the system has failed those it was supposedly designed to help.

There are also too many loopholes for those that want to stay in the system without real need.

 

There is nothing to be done. The path that brought us to this point was set upon many decades ago. Each party are responsible for keeping us on this path, perhaps Obama has been pushing us faster but is just another "leader" in a long line of "leaders" that are doing basically the same.

The USA, as setup by the founding fathers, is pretty much dead.

RIP

 

letlovin

Sorry I must admit I’m not sure what you are saying. Ok I’ll try and make myself clearer since I’ve clearly failed so far.

The point I’m making is that to me – Cato, CNS and Media Research Center are basically all well funded lobby groups, posing as a think tank, news channel or educational organization, but their funding is right wing individuals, foundations and corporations that would benefit from what they promote and preach.

It is important here because this is how this kind of lobbying is disseminated.

I’ve talked about it before – wealth financed think tanks pump out ‘independent reports’ these are then picked up by wealth financed media outlets from Fox to the radio shock jocks and held up as ‘proof’ of their ideas and then many people accepted them without question, though or research and disseminate them on website and forums, where often peoples prejudices are just confirmed.

I mean we seem to go instantly into ‘scroungers living the highlife on benefits’ and calls for sterilisation etc – but looking at the list in the Cato report it struck me just how many of the benefits were meant to help working people - which to me brought up the question why are people being paid so little that they need such assistance?

Do they abuse it or out of necessity use it – I’m not saying there cannot be abuse but for example in the UK far more money is lost through tax evasion than through benefit fraud.

 

56

Ok what answers have I ignored? Can you give an example?

(my italics and bold)

The thing is your statement doesn’t really address anything it’s a statement of beliefs that you don’t explain or back up in any rational way. I mean what ‘programs and practices’ are you talking about? In what way have these ‘programs and practices” “ very effectively demonstated their own failure”?

Then you just restate your opinion again, and again without any accompanying rational argument. What has failed miserably and what are you rational and reasonable arguemet to back up that view?

I didn’t ignore it I just missed replying to it, but let’s see – the thing is that that’s what I’m asking you to do, I’m asking you to examine the criticisms then address them, if they have no validity in your opinion they should be easier to address than if they had validity.

I think what you are trying to argue is that if you don’t think something is a valid criticism then you don’t have to address it.

Rather than just wanting people to accept your statement of opinion as true shouldn’t you be able to back it up with rational and reasonable argument when asked to do so?

Can you address the criticisms of you opinions in a way that doesn’t just involve you restating your opinions.

 

Lolz

All of that is referring to the UK. You should know what your facts are talking about so that you don't look stupid

 

This is the real rub I have with the system is that people get trapped in it.

 

None of this has anything to do with the UK, it's the U.S.A.

I'm not talking about other countries, I'm talking about the United States. Again, know the facts, here they are....

[SIZE=-1]One theme of the 1996 welfare reform is the change in federal funding. Under AFDC, the federal government used to match state expenditure on welfare programs at a specific matching rate. The 1996 welfare reform abandoned open-ended federal matching funding. Instead, each state receives a lump sum of federal funds, roughly the amount the state received in AFDC and AFDC-related funds during 1994-95. To receive this grant, each state must meet a maintenance-of-effort requirement - they must spend at least 75 -80 percent of a state's previous spending for low-income benefits and services. States must also meet other federal requirements, such as work requirements, sanctions, and a cumulative five-year time limit on federal cash assistance. Nationally, TANF lump sum funds to states have totaled about $16.5 billion per year for six years. States are given broader discretion and greater flexibility in using TANF funds and designing programs than under AFDC. [/SIZE]​

[SIZE=-1]The second theme is that federal entitlements to cash welfare were eliminated under TANF. Under the AFDC program, all families whose income fell below state income standards were entitled to receive cash assistance. Now they must meet certain work requirement to be eligible.[/SIZE]​

[SIZE=-1]The essence of the new welfare system is work requirement and the emphasis is placed on helping recipients become self-support through employment. Adult welfare recipients are required to begin work within two years, or a shorter period of time at state discretion. Recipients who fail to meet the work requirement will have their benefits reduced, and more than 30 states have adopted sanction policy that terminates their entire cash TANF benefits. States that do not place a specific percentage of their welfare recipients in work or work preparation programs suffer federal financial penalties. [/SIZE]​

[SIZE=-1]A crucial feature of the 1996 welfare reform is to put five-year lifetime limit on welfare recipients. States may not provide TANF assistance to families that have an adult who has received federal-funded TANF assistance for five years. This feature establishes welfare's temporary nature and pushes recipients to work and leave the program to preserve their lifetime months of eligibility. States may exempt up to 20 percent of their recipients from time limits.[/SIZE]​

[SIZE=-1]Besides work requirement, TANF also encourages family formation by promoting marriage and two-parent families and reducing out-of-wedlock births. States are given more flexibility to serve two-parent families, and those with the highest reduction in their non-marital birth ratio and also reduction in abortion rate are rewarded through the establishment of "illegitimacy bonus." In addition, TANF includes $85 million a year in federal and state financing for "abstinence only" programs for five years.[/SIZE]


http://www.oycf.org/Perspectives2/12...rty_reform.htm​

So again, just stop saying I'm wrong about the U.S. welfare system. You're really looking like a republican moron now.

 

Bal, though you may refuse to accept my statement as an answer, it is an answer, still – perhaps not to your liking because it questions the validity of your opinion. Your attempt to discredit the validity of the report (of the OP) seems based simply on it source. Did you read the entire report? Are you sure of the accuracy of your statement in regard to the 126 programs cited in the report that “not all of them are aimed to help those in ‘poverty’ a lot of it is mean to help struggling working families.” Do you have real knowledge of the criteria used for determining eligibility under the cited programs or is your statement based on something else? You must surely be aware of the differences in Medicare and Medicaid(?)

I’m ‘talking’ about the “programs and practices” of the US welfare system – that’s what this thread is about. Has your “enlightenment” progressed into ADD. Which thread are you reading?

The US welfare system has demonstrated its own failure by failing to reduce poverty. Sure, recipients have left the system but have been replaced by others and more are currently entering the system than are leaving it – for many, there is no way out (as has been mentioned here, by others). HHS-published data tells the same story: the percent of those at or below the poverty level has not changed significantly since the implementation of the “war on poverty” – there have been ups and downs as with any economy-related issue. Cite a hundred “success stories” or a hundred thousand – overall, it is irrelevant: One step forward followed by one (or more) step(s) backward is not progress regardless of how it’s measured or by whom.

Tragically, the biggest victims of the failure are those the system should actually be helping – those unable to get a break, those without anyone (other than the government) to look to for real help. The current system is a fiasco of overlapping programs and includes a myriad of confusing regulation and intertwined eligibility criteria which hinder those trying to work their way out of the system and making it easier to ride the system for others.

LOL Well, at least you didn’t ignore the question, only evaded answering it.

Bal, I have examined your criticisms and have, in spite of their lack of merit, addressed them anyway.

Though some opinions are so preposterous… so irrational… so foolhardy that any comment only lends credibility where none is otherwise to be found, what I have actually done is asked a question of you – one which you have chosen not to answer – by my count, twice.

What you seem to believe is that any statement offered by anyone of an ideology different to your own it patently false or without merit. Since you’ve labeled me as “right-wing” it follows that you would offer disagreement to my saying, “the sky is blue”, without ever having looked to see it.

LOL Shouldn’t you?

Yes, and I have. Can you offer any validation of your criticisms other than just posting another link to someone else’s opinion?

Have a great day. God save the Queen!

 

56

You’ve already called me ‘dense’ and now you are claiming I have a medical condition.

Anything more and you will get a warning.

I mean you seem to be more interested in scoring points against me than in honest debate – please stop the insults and begin debating honestly.

 

56

Me - Ok what answers have I ignored? Can you give an example?

OK now rather than just sneer why not just produce the answers I’ve supposedly not replied to – I do miss things other times I don’t address stuff because I think they are rhetorical questions or statements other times two thing in a post are so similar that I feel one reply covers both and some I don’t think need addressing (although if asked I will). Thing is I like answering questions and addressing criticisms, I come here for fun.

So rather than some silly point scoring why not just produce the answers I’ve supposedly ignored? Can you give an example?

 

56

Yes I read the report yes I looked at the list – lets take the top three in it

Medicaid

“Surprisingly, working families can enroll in Medicaid, as long as they earn less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level, or $37,700 a year for a family of four like the Dicksons. In the Seattle area, nearly 150,000 workers would fit under the income cap, according to the 2000 Census”

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Working-families-rely-on-Medicaid-for-kids-1188359.php#ixzz20OTV2hos

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

After unemployment insurance, SNAP is the most responsive federal program providing additional assistance during economic downturns. It also is an important nutritional support for low-wage working families, low-income seniors, and people with disabilities with fixed incomes.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2226

Earned Income Tax Credit

The earned income credit is a refundable tax credit designed for lower income working families and individuals.
http://taxes.about.com/od/deductionscredits/qt/earnedincome.htm

 

56

And I’m asking what “programs and practices” of the US welfare system are you talking about?

Can you back that up?

That’s how it should work.

Such is the nature of an economic slowdown

Then a way should be found to help them out, but is the removal of what assistance they have the way to do that?

Can you link to this data or say where it is?