Is the welfare system FUCKED?

[buzzard]

So, I was standing on line in Safeway here in Bullhead City Az. and this half-drunk couple in front of me pulls out their Welfare debit card and proceeds to pay for beer,wine & cigarettes with this damned card.Since when does our system reward lazy assholes by paying for vices?? Does this happen EVERYWHERE now?:annoyed:

[AJDELAWARE]

Im really surprised they were allowed to use it on that.

My personal favorite was when I was living out on my own (before I ran back home tom Mom and Dads), I would buy only what is on sale, and if it wasn't on sale, I would get the store brand equivalent and only the basics. I got stuck in line behind a lady one day and she has name brand everything, tons of chips and snacky type food, organic stuff, etc, and she whips out her welfare debit card to pay for it - only to find that shes 2 dollars over, so she puts back the people magazine she had got.

[TheMojoPin]

Yes, this is how it is with everyone who is on welfare.

[AJDELAWARE]

Yes, this is how it is with everyone who is on welfare.

Sarrrrrcasm! A lot of times it just blows my mind that these people have no shame though. If I couldn't afford to support myself and the government had to, I would be so embarassed anytime I had to whip out that card.

My other personal favorite was when I was working in the city, (wilmington) one day Market St. all the stores were packed out, especially the shoe stores and the check cashing store. I managed to put 2 and 2 together, and realized that it was the day the Welfare checks arrive, so everyone was out buying new $100+ shoes and such.

I know this isn't true for all welfarees, but it only takes one bad apple and its usually a dark one.

[HBox]

So I was in line to buy a new yacht and this guy in front of me whips out his food stamp card and I'm like "Hey bitch, what the hell you doin?" and he's like "Yo bitch, I'm just getting my yacht on!" so I'm like "You can't pay for a yacht with food stamps!" and he's all like "You can if you're gonna eat it!" and I'm like "Oh, OK."

[buzzard]

Yes, this is how it is with everyone who is on welfare.

Thanks,I reilly have no problem with peeps that NEED a lil help..this was BS though! I wish It only happened here(BHC)...but even In ChiKKKKKAAAAAGO?? we're indeed on the road to nowhere!:furious:

[buzzard]

So I was in line to buy a new yacht and this guy in front of me whips out his food stamp card and I'm like "Hey bitch, what the hell you doin?" and he's like "Yo bitch, I'm just getting my yacht on!" so I'm like "You can't pay for a yacht with food stamps!" and he's all like "You can if you're gonna eat it!" and I'm like "Oh, OK."

I hope his dingy sinks!

[angrymissy]

My GPS took me through a terrifying ride all the way through Brooklyn to Long Island (through such lovely nabes as Brownsville and East New York), and we passed a fucking seafood place that had a giant sign "LOBSTERS AND KING CRAB, WE ACCEPT EBT CARDS".

[EliSnow]

Thanks,I reilly have no problem with peeps that NEED a lil help..this was BS though! I wish It only happened here(BHC)...but even In ChiKKKKKAAAAAGO?? we're indeed on the road to nowhere!:furious:

Are you claiming to be reilly?!!!!

[angrymissy]

oh, and at least in New York, you can't get cigarettes and alcohol with the ebt card. I've seen people in the supermarket with a cart full of food that they pay for with the card, and then another cart full of magazines, beer, cigs, hair products, etc.

Even Whole Foods takes ebt cards. I know this because I saw a very well-dressed woman use her card for the food, then buy her $25 all-natural overpriced shampoo separately. That kind of pisses me off too.

[FUNKMAN]

it's how the wealthiest like it. keep the poor man poor and drunk

they've perfected it in Russia

[grlNIN]

Did they use your debit card?

Who the fuck cares.

[HBox]

Oh my god! Poor people make bad decisions with their money? Jesus H. Christ! What's this world coming to?

[buzzard]

Did they use your debit card?

Who the fuck cares.
In a round-about way YES,they did! shit like that makes OUR taxes skyrocket!..unless your occupation is degenerate asshole:wink:

[HBox]

In a round-about way YES,they did! shit like that makes OUR taxes skyrocket!..unless your occupation is degenerate asshole:wink:

On a serious note, shit like the military, the War in Iraq, Medicare and Medicaid make your taxes skyrocket. Welfare is like a fraction of a drop in the bucket.

[grlNIN]

The point is that your post seems overall intolerant, not just with the fact that they spent an allotted amount of money on things that you're personally displeased with.

Whether or not your tax dollars are going to them directly has nothing to do with it, your post has an air of indignation that makes you look silly.

*Edit* And by the by, my mother and i were on welfare for about 3 years when i was a teenager. Food stamps, a few Christmas presents and extra food on Thanksgiving. It's not something to be proud of but it really shows you the cost of humility.

[mendyweiss]

oh, and at least in New York, you can't get cigarettes and alcohol with the ebt card. I've seen people in the supermarket with a cart full of food that they pay for with the card, and then another cart full of magazines, beer, cigs, hair products, etc.

Even Whole Foods takes ebt cards. I know this because I saw a very well-dressed woman use her card for the food, then buy her $25 all-natural overpriced shampoo separately. That kind of pisses me off too.

Were you on Pitkin Ave or Sutter Ave? Ah the good old days !!!

[zentraed]

"Cash, food and housing aid together cost $167 billion or 38 percent of the total [of welfare programs]. " From The Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/Test030701b.cfm)

The federal budget is up to $2.9 trillion, so that's all of 6% of the overall budget.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/images/rector0307cht2.jpg

[buzzard]

The point is that your post seems overall intolerant, not just with the fact that they spent an allotted amount of money on things that you're personally displeased with.

Whether or not your tax dollars are going to them directly has nothing to do with it, your post has an air of indignation that makes you look silly.

*Edit* And by the by, my mother and i were on welfare for about 3 years when i was a teenager. Food stamps, a few Christmas presents and extra food on Thanksgiving. It's not something to be proud of but it really shows you the cost of humility.

Yes,I suppose watching people abuse the system makes me somewhat intolerant..silly? I fail to see your logic,there's a BIG difference between vices and necessities/staples.Perhaps failed logic such as yours,as well as general apathy IS why the system is hemorrhaging

[angrymissy]

They wouldn't give my Dad food stamps after he lost his job that he worked at for 20 years, because my brother got $600/mo in Social Security. WTF is that about??? He was the type of person who paid into the system for years, then it didn't benefit him.

[grlNIN]

Yes,I suppose watching people abuse the system makes me somewhat intolerant..silly? I fail to see your logic,there's a BIG difference between vices and necessities/staples.Perhaps failed logic such as yours,as well as general apathy IS why the system is hemorrhaging

No one said there's not a difference between a vice and a necessity, you're just making shit up now.

I didn't create a thread bitching about someone else's questionable purchases. If it pisses you off so much to see stuff like this happen then do something but don't you dare point your fucking finger at me and use the word apathy.

[TheMojoPin]

ChiKKKKKAAAAAGO??

Do you make a machine gun noise in the middle of that?

[TheMojoPin]

the system is hemorrhaging

It's not.

[DolaMight]

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/images/rector0307cht2.jpg
I agree. I like the pretty colors.

[King Hippos Bandaid]

can you use your EBT at OTB or the Track, thats where id be

trying to hit the big score





:king:

[HBox]

http://imgsrv.1010wins.com/image/wins/UserFiles/Image/vick-suit-tight-shot.jpg

"Me and my associates always accept food stamps."

[buzzard]

No one said there's not a difference between a vice and a necessity, you're just making shit up now.

I didn't create a thread bitching about someone else's questionable purchases. If it pisses you off so much to see stuff like this happen then do something but don't you dare point your fucking finger at me and use the word apathy.

Perhaps at 22 you'd prefer the term entitlement? you said it yourself;"questionable purchases" Thanks for making my point,enjoy your day:wink:

[grlNIN]

Good job, you're right on target, Maverick.

[Vidaroke Hayashida]

well i think welfare money should be used for peoples WELFARE! not keeping them in a drunken stupor with cigarettes in their mouth... im fine with the government helping peoople fed... but its not the governments job to keep them drunk and unable to get out of the position where they would receive welfare... food, clothing, shelter, any other necessary supplies... nothing else you shouldnt be buying booze on the governments dollar unless its a tax refund :p

[buzzard]

can you use your EBT at OTB or the Track, thats where id be

trying to hit the big score





:king:

what cruise line(s) do you front for KHB?

[DolaMight]

the system is hemorrhaging

today's paper:

U.S. Poverty Rate Declines Significantly (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070828/poverty.html?.v=4)

[underdog]

So I was in line to buy a new yacht and this guy in front of me whips out his food stamp card and I'm like "Hey bitch, what the hell you doin?" and he's like "Yo bitch, I'm just getting my yacht on!" so I'm like "You can't pay for a yacht with food stamps!" and he's all like "You can if you're gonna eat it!" and I'm like "Oh, OK."

Were you shopping with Latrell Spreewell?

And is the welfare system fucked? Of course it is. Its a government program. The government doesn't run anything correctly. And of course there are people abusing it. There's always going to be a small minority of people who are going to abuse government programs. and its not just poor people, either. Huge companies like Pepsi and Haliburton abuse government programs, too. The problem with welfare is that its easy to pick on poor people, and the only thing people notice are the abuses.

[buzzard]

well i think welfare money should be used for peoples WELFARE! not keeping them in a drunken stupor with cigarettes in their mouth... im fine with the government helping peoople fed... but its not the governments job to keep them drunk and unable to get out of the position where they would receive welfare... food, clothing, shelter, any other necessary supplies... nothing else you shouldnt be buying booze on the governments dollar unless its a tax refund :p

Salient & cogent points my friend,I believe that's where I signed on...as some have suggested it's not universal or it's getting better or even what can you expect it's a Government program and of course why should I bitch?...I thought that's what this message board was for; an outlet to speak one's mind,share ideals & genuinely discuss:smile:

[foodcourtdruide]

Were you shopping with Latrell Spreewell?

And is the welfare system fucked? Of course it is. Its a government program. The government doesn't run anything correctly. And of course there are people abusing it. There's always going to be a small minority of people who are going to abuse government programs. and its not just poor people, either. Huge companies like Pepsi and Haliburton abuse government programs, too. The problem with welfare is that its easy to pick on poor people, and the only thing people notice are the abuses.

The notion that the government doesn't run things correctly is untrue. I think there are programs that have failed, but a lot have been great. I'll take unnecessary bureaucracy over corporate greed anyday.

It's sad that helping the poor has such a stigma in this country, whereas corporate crime and unethical business practices are widely ignored. Of course there will be people who abuse priveledge.. but isn't it worth it? Do you want children to starve just so Joe Shmo can't buy a magazine with a welfare card?

[StupidGirlllll]

FYI people you can also use your EBT/Debit card at the local Target or Walmart. I was in Rite Aid today & when I was leaving I noticed that you can use your JCpenny card there.

[reillyluck]

Its sad really. Theres places by me where you can use your "family first card" to buy liquor and cigarettes...also they will exchange cash for it too. It happens...its the loop of the system. it sucks, but it happens.

just like the debit relief cards that were given to Katrina victims. a lot of people went out and bought crap, went to strip clubs etc. There should be some enforcement, but honestly...someone will work around that too. Gotta love america.

[Vidaroke Hayashida]

Its sad really. Theres places by me where you can use your "family first card" to buy liquor and cigarettes...also they will exchange cash for it too. It happens...its the loop of the system. it sucks, but it happens.

just like the debit relief cards that were given to Katrina victims. a lot of people went out and bought crap, went to strip clubs etc. There should be some enforcement, but honestly...someone will work around that too. Gotta love america.

i didnt realize that some could be exchanged for cash... thats even more dangerous... government bought crack... taxes dollars workin hard to help those who are down get themselves back on their feet

[Crispy123]

I thought that's what this message board was for; an outlet to speak one's mind,share ideals & genuinely discuss:smile:

Would you consider your internet connection a vice, neccesity or luxery?

[foodcourtdruide]

i didnt realize that some could be exchanged for cash... thats even more dangerous... government bought crack... taxes dollars workin hard to help those who are down get themselves back on their feet

This is a tough call. I wonder what would be more expensive.. enforcing the illegal/unethical purchases or just allowing it?

[Vidaroke Hayashida]

This is a tough call. I wonder what would be more expensive.. enforcing the illegal/unethical purchases or just allowing it?

i believe enforcing it... because i have a feeling the system would become corrupt... when there's cash floating around things are bound to go wrong

[buzzard]

Would you consider your internet connection a vice, neccesity or luxery?

a vice & a luxury..I can't eat,bite,fuck,suck,gobble nibble or chew it...ON it yes..to it..argueably no. btw,here's Springsteen's latest song;

http://www.buzzard8.com/wmas/radno.wma ...it's called Radio Nowhere:smile:

[SatCam]

I was in Rite Aid today & when I was leaving I noticed that you can use your JCpenny card there.

me and my family were on JCPenny for about 3 years and it was very tough living off of $100 and 3 xxl shirts a week

[reillyluck]

Every First of the month this chinese food place would charge $2.00 for every dollar food stamp.

Pork fried rice and half a chicken: retail value: $3.00 Foodstamp value: $6.00.

[HBox]

Just accept that the price, besides the actual money, of providing welfare to the people who actually need it is also providing it to a few assholes.

[Bulldogcakes]

"Cash, food and housing aid together cost $167 billion or 38 percent of the total [of welfare programs]. " From The Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/Test030701b.cfm)

The federal budget is up to $2.9 trillion, so that's all of 6% of the overall budget.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/images/rector0307cht2.jpg

Whats interesting about that chart is the explosion around the mid 60's. Much of it was surely from LBJ's Great Society programs (because its just GREAT to be on welfare, the more the merrier!) But people still have to sign up for those handouts, and once upon a time in America it was considered shameful that you couldn't take care of yourself. Quaint, isn't it?

Now of course, we all know that if you can't take care of yourself it's someone else's fault.

[KennethC]

Welfare mothers make better lovers.

[Bulldogcakes]

Just accept that the price, besides the actual money, of providing welfare to the people who actually need it is also providing it to a few assholes.

From a strictly economic standpoint, its also somewhat good for the economy. People having needs that go unmet does nothing for the national GDP. By giving people these goods, someone has to produce them, deliver them, sell them etc. Some forced spending adds some stability to the usual ups and downs of boom and bust cycles.

Its just that someone else is paying for it, and is forced to do so by law. Morally its pretty hideous, economically it makes some sense.

[A.J.]

it's how the wealthiest like it. keep the poor man poor and drunk

they've perfected it in Russia

See also Native American reservations.

[Crispy123]

Whats interesting about that chart is the explosion around the mid 60's. Much of it was surely from LBJ's Great Society programs (because its just GREAT to be on welfare, the more the merrier!) But people still have to sign up for those handouts, and once upon a time in America it was considered shameful that you couldn't take care of yourself. Quaint, isn't it?

Now of course, we all know that if you can't take care of yourself it's someone else's fault.

America used to have seperation of church and state, innocent until proven guilty, a system of checks and balances by seperating the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government, there was a time that Americans didn't live in a police state and were spied on by their government, and it was considered shameful for the American President to tell boldfaced lies to the American people. I think it's all so quiant!!!

[A.J.]

Remember the quaint housing the government had for Japanese-Americans in the 1940s?

http://www.bookmice.net/darkchilde/japan/japan/sign.jpg

http://gainesjunction.tamu.edu/issues/vol3num1/mjones/images/clip_image004.jpg

[Yerdaddy]

So, I was standing on line in Safeway here in Bullhead City Az. and this half-drunk couple in front of me pulls out their Welfare debit card and proceeds to pay for beer,wine & cigarettes with this damned card.Since when does our system reward lazy assholes by paying for vices?? Does this happen EVERYWHERE now?:annoyed:

I've never heard of a welfare debit card but last I heard you couldn't buy cigarettes or alcohol with food stamps. Has that changed, or is Safeway breaking the law by allowing these purchases?

[StupidGirlllll]

I've never heard of a welfare debit card but last I heard you couldn't buy cigarettes or alcohol with food stamps. Has that changed, or is Safeway breaking the law by allowing these purchases?


No what they do now is put everything on 1 debit card you get cash allowence & food allowance. You can not purchase cigs with the food part but with the cash part it is allowed.

[foodcourtdruide]

Whats interesting about that chart is the explosion around the mid 60's. Much of it was surely from LBJ's Great Society programs (because its just GREAT to be on welfare, the more the merrier!) But people still have to sign up for those handouts, and once upon a time in America it was considered shameful that you couldn't take care of yourself. Quaint, isn't it?

Now of course, we all know that if you can't take care of yourself it's someone else's fault.

It's still considered shameful by many not to be able to take care of yourself. Let's not pretend that everyone in the 60's was honorable and self-sufficient, then suddenly everyone became lazy and wanted a handout.

[AJDELAWARE]

It's still considered shameful by many not to be able to take care of yourself. Let's not pretend that everyone in the 60's was honorable and self-sufficient, then suddenly everyone became lazy and wanted a handout.

This is going to be my racist rant for today. Black people, I have a feeling, make up a large portion of welfare recipients. Im sure a lot of these people are also the same people that believe they should be paid reparations for their ancestors hardships 200 years ago. All they want is a hand out. Plain and simple.

[Ritalin]

I live in Queens and I see LOTS of people in front of me in line at the grocery store buying things with EBT cards. Recent immigrants, spanish speaking mothers with 3 or 4 kids clinging to their legs. It used to rile me up pretty good.

But you know, it's none of my business. It's no skin off my nose, and when I thought about it, I definitely didn't want to trade places.

I don't mean that I'm looking down on anybody. I love my neighborhood BECAUSE it's so diverse, and I can make a convincing arguement that a recently arrived immigrant embodies the qualites you would consider American more than anyone.

No, what I mean by not trading places is that I feel like I've gotten all the advantages I could ever need to succeed in this world and I have nothing to complain about. I'm a tall white man and my college education was paid for. If I can't make something out of that then there's something wrong with ME.

It's unseemly to be bitching about some paying for a pack of smokes with an EBT card in that context.

[Crispy123]

This is going to be my racist rant for today. Black people, I have a feeling, make up a large portion of welfare recipients. Im sure a lot of these people are also the same people that believe they should be paid reparations for their ancestors hardships 200 years ago. All they want is a hand out. Plain and simple.

Oh its not rascist my friend, its science. Studies show that increased levels of melanonin make you shiftless and lazy....also makes you crave watermelon and fried chicken.

[Earlshog]

This is going to be my racist rant for today. Black people, I have a feeling, make up a large portion of welfare recipients. Im sure a lot of these people are also the same people that believe they should be paid reparations for their ancestors hardships 200 years ago. All they want is a hand out. Plain and simple.

Why would you "have a feeling"? Why not look it up?

FYI your feeling was wrong more white people are on welfare then black in the US.

[AJDELAWARE]

Why would you "have a feeling"? Why not look it up?

FYI your feeling was wrong more white people are on welfare then black in the US.

Yeah but im sure that a good portion of them are redheads, which are just as bad if not worse then blacks.

[Recyclerz]

I live in Queens and I see LOTS of people in front of me in line at the grocery store buying things with EBT cards. Recent immigrants, spanish speaking mothers with 3 or 4 kids clinging to their legs. It used to rile me up pretty good.

But you know, it's none of my business. It's no skin off my nose, and when I thought about it, I definitely didn't want to trade places.

I don't mean that I'm looking down on anybody. I love my neighborhood BECAUSE it's so diverse, and I can make a convincing arguement that a recently arrived immigrant embodies the qualites you would consider American more than anyone.

No, what I mean by not trading places is that I feel like I've gotten all the advantages I could ever need to succeed in this world and I have nothing to complain about. I'm a tall white man and my college education was paid for. If I can't make something out of that then there's something wrong with ME.

It's unseemly to be bitching about some paying for a pack of smokes with an EBT card in that context.

I agree with Ritalin's take in this matter. Even if his screen name is infringing on my company's trademark.

[TheMojoPin]

Whats interesting about that chart is the explosion around the mid 60's. Much of it was surely from LBJ's Great Society programs (because its just GREAT to be on welfare, the more the merrier!) But people still have to sign up for those handouts, and once upon a time in America it was considered shameful that you couldn't take care of yourself. Quaint, isn't it?

Now of course, we all know that if you can't take care of yourself it's someone else's fault.

The poverty in this country also used to be much, much, MUCH worse. Funny how that works.

[angrymissy]

The only reason it pisses me off is because when my Dad was down and out, the system wouldn't help him. The problem is the system rewards not working, and if someone has paid in for 20 years and needs help getting back on his feet, tough shit (because your kid gets $600/mo in death benefits). So they can't help out someone who just needs help buying food, yet people who don't work at all can buy cigarettes and beer.

[bentcorner]

I can always tell ahead of time if someone in line in front of me is going to use EBT. If their cart is full of non-generic, name brand food stuffs and the food consists mostly of frozen junk food, chances are they are on welfare. That never made sense. If they don't work, you would think they have all the time in the world to make their own food and wouldn't need to buy frozen pizzas.

[AJDELAWARE]

I used to live near a Section 8 (government issue) housing. This was the neighborhood to go to if you wanted to see the newest fashions, the nicest cars, and the shittiest most unkept houses in the world.

Parents would stay unmarried so they could both obtain welfare checks, while continuing to churn out kids so they could maximize how much the mother would get. This was also the neighborhood where I saw my first Cadillac Escalade, H2, and any other luxury SUV.

Its also where you went to look for your bike if it got stolen.

[TheMojoPin]

This is going to be my racist rant for today. Black people, I have a feeling, make up a large portion of welfare recipients. Im sure a lot of these people are also the same people that believe they should be paid reparations for their ancestors hardships 200 years ago. All they want is a hand out. Plain and simple.

There are more white people on welfare at any given time than any other racial group. The majority of welfare recipients, all of them, average two years or less of being on welfare.

[AJDELAWARE]

There are more white people on welfare at any given time than any other racial group.

This makes sense based on the fact that there are 6 times more whites then blacks in America.

[bentcorner]

There are more white people on welfare at any given time than any other racial group. The majority of welfare recipients, all of them, average two years or less of being on welfare.

All these white people on welfare..... are their kids white too?

[AJDELAWARE]

All these white people on welfare..... are their kids white too?

I was thinking that, but I limit myself to one racist comment a day.

[bentcorner]

I was thinking that, but I limit myself to one racist comment a day.It was an honest question. I wasn't being racist.

[AJDELAWARE]

It was an honest question. I wasn't being racist.

Oh come on, you live in Maryland.

[bentcorner]

Oh come on, you live in Maryland.Yes I do, each and every day. I'm not sure I know what that has got to do with it.....

[Recyclerz]

Did someone get their time machine working and take this board back to 1994?

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/news/stats/6090_ch2.htm

Apparently, the lazy and shiftless employees at HHS haven't updated their graphs for awhile but I doubt there has been an explosion of new welfare recipients under the Bush Administration.

BTW, the linked stat is for the program most people refer to when talking about welfare, payments to parents of kids living below the poverty line. The fastest growing part of "welfare" spending these days is Medicaid $ going to nursing homes to take care of the indigent elderly. So if you have an relative moldering in one of those places, odds are that you are a (indirect) beneficiary of welfare spending.

[nate1000]

Welfare mothers make better lovers.

That's cause they're hungry. Hey, protein is protein.

[nate1000]

The only reason it pisses me off is because when my Dad was down and out, the system wouldn't help him. The problem is the system rewards not working, and if someone has paid in for 20 years and needs help getting back on his feet, tough shit (because your kid gets $600/mo in death benefits). So they can't help out someone who just needs help buying food, yet people who don't work at all can buy cigarettes and beer.

Classic case of NEM syndrome

Not Enough Melanin.

[Yerdaddy]

Whats interesting about that chart is the explosion around the mid 60's. Much of it was surely from LBJ's Great Society programs (because its just GREAT to be on welfare, the more the merrier!) But people still have to sign up for those handouts, and once upon a time in America it was considered shameful that you couldn't take care of yourself. Quaint, isn't it?

Now of course, we all know that if you can't take care of yourself it's someone else's fault.

Once upon a time it was considered terminal if you couldn't take care of yourself. It was considered shameful to be black, (about the time AJDELAWARE is saying they all wanted reparations, which they didn't), not to mention Jewish, Mexican, Asian, Native American, Irish, Polish...

And isn't the "they all want to be on welfare" argument just like the argument that homosexuals choose to be homosexual? Who the fuck would actually choose to be a pariah to their own society? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it's more complex than "all the cool kids are doing it."

I also think we have to consider a couple of major facts in talking about poverty, like: 1. we have the weakest social safety net in the developed world, 2. we have the most market-based, least regulated economy, and 3. we have the highest poverty rate in the developed world. Could there be a connection somewhere in these conditions?

[AJDELAWARE]

(about the time AJDELAWARE is saying they all wanted reparations, which they didn't)

Totalllly didnt say allll blacks wanted reparations.

[Crispy123]

This is going to be my racist rant for today. Black people, I have a feeling, make up a large portion of welfare recipients. Im sure a lot of these people are also the same people that believe they should be paid reparations for their ancestors hardships 200 years ago. All they want is a hand out. Plain and simple.

Totalllly didnt say allll blacks wanted reparations.


Say what, nigga???

[foodcourtdruide]

All these white people on welfare..... are their kids white too?

Why on Earth would that matter?

[AJDELAWARE]

Say what, nigga???


Im sure a lot of these people are also the same people that believe they should be paid reparations for their ancestors hardships 200 years ago.

is a very different statement from

All black people believe they should be paid reparations..

[Yerdaddy]

Totalllly didnt say allll blacks wanted reparations.

Why the fuck did you bring it up in the first place? To make a point attacking black people. You've far surpassed your one racist comment today.

[AJDELAWARE]

Why the fuck did you bring it up in the first place? To make a point attacking black people. You've far surpassed your one racist comment today.

Nah, that was totally part of the first racist comment.

[FUNKMAN]

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/070829/usa_economy_pay.html?.v=1

On average, CEOs at major American corporations saw $1.3 million in pension gains last year. By contrast, 58.5 percent of American households led by a 45- to 54-year old even had a retirement account in 2004, the most recent year these figures were available.

According to the report, between 2001 and 2004, retirement accounts of these average households gained only $3,775 in value a year.

The top 386 CEOs in the study took in perks, such as housing allowances and travel benefits, worth on average $438,342 in 2006. It would take a minimum wage worker 36 years to earn the equivalent of what CEOs averaged in just perks alone.

The 20 highest-paid individuals at publicly traded corporations last year took home, on average, $36.4 million. That's 38 times more than the 20 highest-paid leaders in the non-profit sector and 204 times more than the 20 highest-paid generals in the U.S. military.

American executives significantly out-earn their European counterparts, the study found. In 2006, the 20 highest-paid European managers made an average of $12.5 million, a third as

[Yerdaddy]

Nah, that was totally part of the first racist comment.

One a day still makes you a dick. That's my one personal attack on racists per day.

[bentcorner]

Why on Earth would that matter?I just wanted some clarification. Someone said that "there are more white people on welfare at any given time than any other racial group". I wanted to know if all these white people on welfare had white kids. Anybody know the answer?

[Fat_Sunny]

http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/070829/usa_economy_pay.html?.v=1

On average, CEOs at major American corporations saw $1.3 million in pension gains last year. By contrast, 58.5 percent of American households led by a 45- to 54-year old even had a retirement account in 2004, the most recent year these figures were available.

According to the report, between 2001 and 2004, retirement accounts of these average households gained only $3,775 in value a year.

The top 386 CEOs in the study took in perks, such as housing allowances and travel benefits, worth on average $438,342 in 2006. It would take a minimum wage worker 36 years to earn the equivalent of what CEOs averaged in just perks alone.

The 20 highest-paid individuals at publicly traded corporations last year took home, on average, $36.4 million. That's 38 times more than the 20 highest-paid leaders in the non-profit sector and 204 times more than the 20 highest-paid generals in the U.S. military.

American executives significantly out-earn their European counterparts, the study found. In 2006, the 20 highest-paid European managers made an average of $12.5 million, a third as

F_S Is, In Theory, Very Much Free-Market. HOWEVER, CEO Pay Is WAY Out Of Whack And Something Needs To Be Done. If Boards Of Directors Would Set Caps, That Would Be The Ideal Solution, But They Won't...Because EVERY Company Would Have To Do It To Make It Work.

So The Government Will Probably Have To Do It, But In What Form, F_S Has No Clue At This Point.

[FUNKMAN]

I just wanted some clarification. Someone said that "there are more white people on welfare at any given time than any other racial group". I wanted to know if all these white people on welfare had white kids. Anybody know the answer?

i can't tell

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n7/JoeyPorsche911/P3240465.jpg

[FUNKMAN]

F_S Is, In Theory, Very Much Free-Market. HOWEVER, CEO Pay Is WAY Out Of Whack And Something Needs To Be Done. If Boards Of Directors Would Set Caps, That Would Be The Ideal Solution, But They Won't...Because EVERY Company Would Have To Do It To Make It Work.

So The Government Will Probably Have To Do It, But In What Form, F_S Has No Clue At This Point.

another little nugget of joy: i saw on the news today that less people are in poverty because they began making more than 24k a year. like this was such a positive figure. what fucking standard of living will 24 and a half k give someone today?

the problem with ceo's making so much is it's expected that the average employee take less than a cost of living increase and a continued reduction in benefits

[AJDELAWARE]

One a day still makes you a dick. That's my one personal attack on racists per day.

In hind sight, it was hardly even a racist comment. It was a racial assumption that most black people on welfare are the same people who want reparations for slavery. There were far more racist comments said in here today, but glad I could make you feel ike youve earned your anti-racism gold star for the day.

[AJDELAWARE]

another little nugget of joy: i saw on the news today that less people are in poverty because they began making more than 24k a year. like this was such a positive figure. what fucking standard of living will 24 and a half k give someone today?

the problem with ceo's making so much is it's expected that the average employee take less than a cost of living increase and a continued reduction in benefits

30k a year and I couldn't live on my own, but I also have $450 in car payment and insurance cause I had to have a new car.

[buzzard]

Just so yous know,the couple buying all the beer,wine & smokes were white as sheets.:wink:...just sayin'

[epo]

In hind sight, it was hardly even a racist comment. It was a racial assumption that most black people on welfare are the same people who want reparations for slavery. There were far more racist comments said in here today, but glad I could make you feel ike youve earned your anti-racism gold star for the day.

Actually you are definitely acting like a racist. Quit being a dick.

[epo]

So, I was standing on line in Safeway here in Bullhead City Az. and this half-drunk couple in front of me pulls out their Welfare debit card and proceeds to pay for beer,wine & cigarettes with this damned card.Since when does our system reward lazy assholes by paying for vices?? Does this happen EVERYWHERE now?:annoyed:

I'm sure you shop at Safeway AND Walmart right? It's the poor people's fault, but please ignore the corporate welfare that you pay for. I'm sure that the corporate welfare is much cheaper than a social safety net that corporations are taking advantage of.

Very logical.

[Bulldogcakes]

Once upon a time it was considered terminal if you couldn't take care of yourself. It was considered shameful to be black, not to mention Jewish, Mexican, Asian, Native American, Irish, Polish...

And isn't the "they all want to be on welfare" argument just like the argument that homosexuals choose to be homosexual? Who the fuck would actually choose to be a pariah to their own society? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it's more complex than "all the cool kids are doing it."

I also think we have to consider a couple of major facts in talking about poverty, like: 1. we have the weakest social safety net in the developed world, 2. we have the most market-based, least regulated economy, and 3. we have the highest poverty rate in the developed world. Could there be a connection somewhere in these conditions?

Well first of all don't lump me in with the racists on this because that not where I'm going. The fact of the matter is there have always been more whites on welfare than blacks. But in all communities, white and black there was a sense of shame if someone was on the dole, even during the Great Depression. But in the 60's that all changed. It all became someone else's fault whether you were a white hippie or a Black Panther. I just think on a personal level that solves nothing, and its not until you stop blaming others for your circumstances that you begin to dig your way out of it. I figured that out a looooong time ago, and it amazes me how some people never do. My brother's one of them, and he's 2 years older than me.

About the safety net, were not Europe and don't want to be. We also have the highest standard of living in the developed world, so "poverty rates" are all in how you score them. When you add in subsidized housing/services/food stamps etc many people considered to be poor approach the middle class in overall spent. I know this, I'd rather be poor in America than middle class in most other countries. At least here you have a chance to rise out of it. And if you think government can provide for all these needs I think it can't. Not in a free market system. The more government you have the more taxes you have squeeze out of businesses and individuals. The less money they have to spend, the more the economy goes down. The more the economy goes down, the higher you have to raise taxes to keep providing those services, and therefore chase away more individuals and businesses, and the cycle keeps spiraling downward. You really should look at how this actually played out in NYC during the 70's and early 90's to see where this all leads. Rudy Giuliani wasn't elected because everything was just peachy in this town.

[Bulldogcakes]

Did someone get their time machine working and take this board back to 1994?

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/news/stats/6090_ch2.htm

Apparently, the lazy and shiftless employees at HHS haven't updated their graphs for awhile but I doubt there has been an explosion of new welfare recipients under the Bush Administration.

BTW, the linked stat is for the program most people refer to when talking about welfare, payments to parents of kids living below the poverty line. The fastest growing part of "welfare" spending these days is Medicaid $ going to nursing homes to take care of the indigent elderly. So if you have an relative moldering in one of those places, odds are that you are a (indirect) beneficiary of welfare spending.

As usual, thanks for spreading more light than heat around here. I know welfare rates have declined substantially since the (here it comes) Newt Gingrich led Republican congress pushed through welfare reform in the mid 90's. I know Clinton said he was going to pass welfare reform when he campaigned, but somehow he didn't get around to it until Newt twisted his arm. I also remember that a lot of folks on your side of the aisle were dead set against it, and predicted doom and gloom as a result. None of which came to pass, actually quite the contrary. The economy continued to boom and soaked up the extra workers rather nicely. I know there are areas of Manhattan which have completely turned around (L.E.S. comes to mind, among others) and this was a key factor.

[Crispy123]

But in all communities, white and black there was a sense of shame if someone was on the dole, even during the Great Depression. But in the 60's that all changed. I figured that out a looooong time ago, and it amazes me how some people never do.


I figured out there was no shame in Welfare when my family was on it in the 80's. Dont sprain your wrist from patting yourself on the back too much because you figured out Welfare back in the 60's. That just means you're old.

As usual, thanks for spreading more light than heat around here. I know welfare rates have declined substantially since the (here it comes) Newt Gingrich led Republican congress pushed through welfare reform in the mid 90's. I know Clinton said he was going to pass welfare reform when he campaigned, but somehow he didn't get around to it until Newt twisted his arm. I also remember that a lot of folks on your side of the aisle were dead set against it, and predicted doom and gloom as a result. None of which came to pass, actually quite the contrary. The economy continued to boom and soaked up the extra workers rather nicely. I know there are areas of Manhattan which have completely turned around (L.E.S. comes to mind, among others) and this was a key factor.


The economy is doing great and a miority of people are reaping the benefits. The majority of the people living at or near the poverty line have family and friends on the ground serving in Iraq.

[Bulldogcakes]

Dont sprain your wrist from patting yourself on the back too much because you figured out Welfare back in the 60's. That just means you're old.

I didn't mean I was there, I'm 38. I meant I figured it out on a personal level.


The economy is doing great and a minority of people are reaping the benefits. The majority of the people living at or near the poverty line have family and friends on the ground serving in Iraq.

Thank you for proving my point.

[Yerdaddy]

Well first of all don't lump me in with the racists on this because that not where I'm going. The fact of the matter is there have always been more whites on welfare than blacks. But in all communities, white and black there was a sense of shame if someone was on the dole, even during the Great Depression. But in the 60's that all changed. It all became someone else's fault whether you were a white hippie or a Black Panther. I just think on a personal level that solves nothing, and its not until you stop blaming others for your circumstances that you begin to dig your way out of it. I figured that out a looooong time ago, and it amazes me how some people never do. My brother's one of them, and he's 2 years older than me.

I didn't lump you in with the racists. I've never seen you make a racist comment. That's why I put it in brackets and referenced the racist specifically.

I referenced the stigma change on race and religion because that's a change in attitudes of Americans that I know is real. You can look at the history of the 60s and see that these minorities were discriminated against on a level that would be unrecognizable today. The stigma change on being poor that you're talking about I don't see any evidence of unless you're talking about the Great Depression - where millions of middle class Americans were thrown into poverty, (by free market capitalism and not by social welfare programs and excessive taxation). Middle class people who become poor are more likely to feel the shame of the inability to be self-sufficient and the literature of the Great Depression reflects this. But I don't see any evidence that there was less of a sense of shame among the pre-1960s permanent underclass then or more of that sense among the permanent underclass now except maybe that the most visible sector of that group - poor black people - can actually express their opinions on the matter without being beaten, imprisoned, fired or otherwise ignored.

Now I don't think that black people are by nature more prone to wanting to be on the dole than whites, but I know that from 1968, about when blacks finally achieved the legal status in America equal to whites, until the 1990s their rate of poverty was unchanged - at roughly 30% or double that of whites. Nevertheless the attitude of the American mainstream was: "you've got your freedom now so it's your own damn fault." Poor blacks who knew their fathers and all previous generations' ability to provide for their families was never equal to whites and always subject to the will of whites were unsurprisingly unwilling to accept that they suddenly had an equal opportunity with the rest of Americans. In fact, living in the same conditions left over from 100 years of segregation and discrimination, they didn't have the same opportunities, and still don't. But Americans, as reflected in the lack of meaningful efforts to undue those conditions, weren't interested in the effects of our legacy of making them second class citizens and largely ignored the conditions that blacks lived in.

Why do I write a paragraph about black poverty? Because poor blacks and blacks who are vocal about these issues have always been the poster children for these myths about American poverty, like "there's no shame in not being self-sufficient." Whenever blacks have vocalized the facts of their legacy of poverty leftover from past legal discrimination, (or the residual cultural discrimination that lasted long past the end of the legal kind), they've been countered with accusations of laziness or some other intrinsic faults - blame for their own poverty - and the backlash continues in the people like AJDELAWARE who still bring reparations up like it was relevant today as a way of slandering black people for no good reason. In this cultural climate I consider it understandable that there is a permanent black underclass who is suspicious of the American Dream - available to all. And to counter the vocalized distrust and rejection of American mythology about them the backlash continues today in mythologies about a class-based "welfare dependency" created by Johnson's War on Poverty.

This is where I see your argument coming from. This is where I've seen it evolve from over my political lifetime of the last 20 years.

Now, as to the veracity of the welfare dependency theory: I think the evidence shows something completely different.

For starters, one thing the War on Poverty did was substantially reduce poverty in the first decade of it's existence.

Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_poverty)In the decade following the 1964 introduction of the war on poverty, poverty rates in the U.S. dropped to their lowest level to date: 11.1% . They have remained between 11 and 15.2% ever since. Since 1973 poverty has remained well below the historical U.S. averages in the range of 20-25%.[2] (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html)

[I linked the source to show that it comes from US Census Bureau data.]

And the fact that Mojo mentioned - that most people who go on welfare are on for less than two years - belies your statement that it's not shamefull today to be on welfare, or would't welfare roles increase rather than decrease in recent years as recyclerz's graph shows?

So in order to defend your claim - that American poor have been made to embrace and become dependent on welfare by the War on Poverty programs - you'll have to show me: 1. why are more of them moving off welfare and most of them stay on less than two years when they're not ashamed of being on it, and 2. that a higher percentage of the pre-1960s poor were ashamed of being dependent, (and, I guess, how they could have been ashamed of being dependent on the government or others when there were so few pre-Johnson social programs to be dependent on in the first place).

Frankly I don't see how that can be shown - attitudes of the poor towards their poverty. That's part of the reason I broke my new rule of avoiding long-winded waste-of-time posts - to show where I think that theory came from without being able to provide statistics on attitudes. I think you can only state opinions about that specific claims. And I will probably continue to disagree wtih them, but I'll leave this post as my only rebuttal as it pretty much states all I want to say on the subject.

About the safety net, were not Europe and don't want to be. We also have the highest standard of living in the developed world,* so "poverty rates" are all in how you score them. When you add in subsidized housing/services/food stamps etc many people considered to be poor approach the middle class in overall spent.,* I know this, I'd rather be poor in America than middle class in most other countries. [I sure as hell wouldn't.] At least here you have a chance to rise out of it.,* And if you think government can provide for all these needs I think it can't.[I don't think that it can, I just think it can do alot more than it does - see near halving of the poverty rate after 1959.] Not in a free market system.,* The more government you have the more taxes you have squeeze out of businesses and individuals. The less money they have to spend, the more the economy goes down. The more the economy goes down, the higher you have to raise taxes to keep providing those services, and therefore chase away more individuals and businesses, and the cycle keeps spiraling downward.,* You really should look at how this actually played out in NYC during the 70's and early 90's to see where this all leads. Rudy Giuliani wasn't elected because everything was just peachy in this town.

* = statements I strongly believe aren't true.

As for NYC during the 70's and early 90's to see where this all leads - where would I look for that? I certainly hope it's not to Giuliani himself because I don't have much faith in his own bullshit claims about the wonders of his fiscal responsibilities. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/25/us/politics/25giuliani.html?hp=&pagewanted=print)

Rudolph W. Giuliani has been broadcasting radio advertisements in Iowa and other states far from the city he once led stating that as mayor of New York, he “turned a $2.3 billion deficit into a multibillion dollar surplus.”

The assertion, which Mr. Giuliani has repeated on the trail as he has promoted his fiscal conservatism, is somewhat misleading, independent fiscal monitors said. In fact, Mr. Giuliani left his successor, Michael R. Bloomberg, with a bigger deficit than the one Mr. Giuliani had to deal with when he arrived in 1994. And that deficit would have been large even if the city had not been attacked on Sept. 11, 2001.

“He inherited a gap, and he left a gap for his successor,” Ronnie Lowenstein, the director of the city’s Independent Budget Office, a nonpartisan agency that monitors the city budget, said of Mr. Giuliani. “The city was budgeting as though the good times were not going to end, but sooner or later they always do.”

The Giuliani campaign defended the advertisement, noting that it merely states that Mr. Giuliani created a multibillion-dollar surplus, not that he passed one on to his successor.

Mr. Giuliani’s eight years of fiscal stewardship of the city was initially marked by a new brand of conservative budgeting principles in which he cut spending, cut taxes and cut the payroll. Later, when the booming stock market of the late 1990s pumped revenues into the city’s coffers, Mr. Giuliani was able to cut taxes, increase spending above the rate of inflation, and still post big surpluses.

But the economy cooled near the end of Mr. Giuliani’s second term, and he spent most of the roughly $3 billion surplus he had accumulated to balance his final budget, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2002. Even before the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Giuliani projected that his successor would face a $2.8 billion gap the next year. After the attacks, that gap climbed to $4.8 billion in a $42.3 billion budget.

Faced with such a huge deficit, which continued to grow as the economic aftershocks of the attacks continued and the costs of some of the Giuliani administration’s policies came due, the next mayor, Mr. Bloomberg, was forced to take the extraordinary steps of borrowing to pay for operating expenses, cutting programs, and raising property taxes by 18.5 percent to balance the budget.

[Yerdaddy]

As usual, thanks for spreading more light than heat around here. I know welfare rates have declined substantially since the (here it comes) Newt Gingrich led Republican congress pushed through welfare reform in the mid 90's. I know Clinton said he was going to pass welfare reform when he campaigned, but somehow he didn't get around to it until Newt twisted his arm. I also remember that a lot of folks on your side of the aisle were dead set against it, and predicted doom and gloom as a result. None of which came to pass, actually quite the contrary. The economy continued to boom and soaked up the extra workers rather nicely. I know there are areas of Manhattan which have completely turned around (L.E.S. comes to mind, among others) and this was a key factor.

This is unfair. Clinton campaigned on welfare reform, (as a Democrat no less), publicly supported it, had his White House work with the Republican Congress to get the compromise that would pass, got enough Democrats on board to get it through, and finally signed the bill. Just because he didn't do it in his first year in office he gets no credit? How is that unusual? If Bush had got his immigration reform through this year would you credit the Democrats for it?

You can blame the democrats who opposed it for opposing it, but not the ones who supported it, including Clinton. Welfare reform is totally in line with Clinton's fiscally conservative policies throughout his administration - from wholeheartedly supporting NAFTA to leaving behind the budget surpluses Republicans have been promising for decades but never delivering on.

[Crispy123]

Thank you for proving my point.

Im confused...your point is that the majority of working class or poor Americans should blame the rich minority for their problems??? Cause then I agree totally, I thought you were saying something different.

[Bulldogcakes]

So in order to defend your claim - that American poor have been made to embrace and become dependent on welfare by the War on Poverty programs - you'll have to show me: 1. why are more of them moving off welfare and most of them stay on less than two years when they're not ashamed of being on it, and 2. that a higher percentage of the pre-1960s poor were ashamed of being dependent, (and, I guess, how they could have been ashamed of being dependent on the government or others when there were so few pre-Johnson social programs to be dependent on in the first place).


Ugh, you made so many points I can't respond to all of them. I'll just deal with your two questions since I'm not sure I've been clear about where I am on all this.

1) Limits were placed on welfare by the Gingrich/Clinton (happy?) reforms of 1996. One of the main goals was eliminating "cycles of dependency" and "generation to generation" welfare. That was one of the key elements of the bill, placing time limits on benefits and that was one of the most hotly contested by its opponents, most of whom were on the Left. Thats why people are moving off more quickly.

2) I made this point in my initial post already. The government can offer whatever services they want, people don't have to sign up for them. The very fact that spending EXPLODED in the 60's tells me that attitudes changed significantly. The economy was strong in the 60's, there was no general economic explanation for such a huge increase. In the Great Depression, welfare was generally seen as a last resort. In the 60's, it was used much more freely and with much less stigma than it formerly had. The very fact of the enormous spending increase in the absence of an economic downturn proves this to me.

BTW-There are all sorts of programs out there that NYS and NYC offer that I could take advantage of for either myself or my business. I simply don't believe in it. Thats somebody else's sweat you're spending, and I just think that's wrong if you're able bodied.

Long story short, I think the reforms were a good idea. Some seem to be arguing here to bring back ideas and justifications that led us to the bad old days, thats what I'm against.

This
Welfare Reform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_reform) article has little I disagree with. If you still don't get where I'm coming from, give it a quick read.

The consequences of welfare reform have been dramatic. As expected, welfare rolls (the number of people receiving payments) dropped significantly (57%) in the years since passage of the bill. Substantially larger declines in welfare rolls were posted by many states, and even big city-dominated Illinois achieved an 86% reduction in welfare recipients. [MacDougal 2005] Child poverty rates for African American families have dropped the sharpest since statistics began to be tallied in the 1960s

[Yerdaddy]

1) Limits were placed on welfare by the Gingrich/Clinton (happy?) reforms of 1996. One of the main goals was eliminating "cycles of dependency" and "generation to generation" welfare. That was one of the key elements of the bill, placing time limits on benefits and that was one of the most hotly contested by its opponents, most of whom were on the Left. Thats why people are moving off more quickly.

But the reforms didn't eliminate the problems of "cycles of dependency" and "generation to generation" welfare. It probably reduced them and it certainly prevented many working mothers from getting caught in that cycle because the welfare system as it existed prior to reform wasn't funding previous attempts to promote work and reduce dependence. Here's part of Congressional testimony from the publisher of a think-tank publication on child welfare who uses most of his time to praise the reforms, cite statistics to prove its successes, and criticize liberals for predicting doom and gloom from the reforms: (http://www.futureofchildren.org/newsletter2861/newsletter_show.htm?doc_id=385387)

At the request of the Ways and Means Committee in 1997, CBO undertook a study to determine whether federal policy changes between 1984 and 1998 had resulted in more support for low-income working families. CBO examined several major entitlement programs that help working families, including child care, the EITC, Medicaid, and the child tax credit. Taken together, we can label these and similar programs the nation's work support system, because the programs provide financial and in-kind support to poor and low-income working families. CBO calculated the benefits that would have accrued to low-income working families from the work support system under 1984 law and compared that level of support to the level under 1999 law. Because every work support program examined by CBO had been expanded or created since 1984, the analysis was expected to show an increased commitment by federal policymakers to low-income working families. But it is fair to say that even experts were surprised by the finding that if the work support system had remained as it had been in 1984, working families in 1999 would have received only around $6 billion in government work support benefits (Figure 5). By contrast, the 1999 version of the work support system – that is, the one that actually existed in 1999 – provided nearly $52 billion in support to working families. In other words, the expansions in the work support system after 1984 resulted in working families receiving $46 billion more in cash and other benefits than they would have received if Congress and a series of presidents had not expanded the work support programs. It would be difficult to exaggerate the extent to which the nation's social policy to help low-income families has shifted from one that provided most of its benefits to families dependent on welfare to one that provides enormous benefits to working families.

Now here's an excerpt from another article in the same publication titled "A Brief History of Work Expectations for Welfare Mothers" regarding the funding of support systems available during previous attempts to impliment similar welfare-to-work programs:

At the same time, it should be noted that JOBS was never implemented at the scale intended by federal legislation. JOBS funding depended on states' willingness and capacity to allocate their own resources to the program in order to draw down the matching dollars from the federal government. In part due to the national recession of 1990, which followed closely on the heels of the JOBS start-up period, states tended not to claim their full federal entitlement. In 1992, for example, they failed to draw down about one-third of the $1 billion in federal funds to which they were entitled,29 and in 1993, only 16 states completely claimed their match.

I read this history and many of the highly publicized reforms contained in the 1996 reforms were contained in the JOBS program. (I also remember a study and the resulting welfare reforms that were conducted by the Nixon administration under the leadership of former Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan that implimented the same ideas but with funding being cut by future administrations and Congress.)

I believe the difference between the 1996 reforms and the similar reforms that came before it is the fact that the programs that actually assist people in transitioning from welfare to work were actually fiunded to a level that made them effected. As a result single mothers actually got help with childcare and medical care and tax credits that didn't make work less profitable than welfare. It wasn't just that people were cut off of government programs and they all swam instead of sunk. Smart programs were actually available to assist people become self-sufficient and they took it - before their entitlements ran out. The primary beneficiaries of the reforms were the working poor. (I would also point out in regards to the "modern sense of entitlement" theory that currently the rate of unemployment is about half of the current rate of poverty, illustrating the fact that at least half of America's poor do work.) Read two paragraphs down the Congressional testimony from the paragraph I quoted for a description of the remaining group of families that are still caught in the "cycle of poverty":

There are several types of evidence that a number of mothers are in fact floundering. Surveys show that about 60 percent of the mothers who leave welfare are working at any given moment and that around 70 percent have held at least one job since leaving welfare. The 40 percent who do not work regularly raise some concern, but the 30 percent who have not worked at all since leaving welfare raise even more serious concern. States frequently use sanctions and thirty-six states have policy that allows them to completely terminate cash benefits for rule infractions. At least one study found that mothers who were sanctioned off the rolls had characteristics that make it less likely they will be able to get and hold a job. More specifically, they are less likely to have a high school degree or job experience and more likely to have substance addictions, mental health problems, or three or more children than other welfare mothers.

There are other factors besides acceptance of dependency that keep people from leaving welfare. And just throwing people off welfare or cutting the evil government's sinister programs don't get people to work because they don't address the real issues effecting poor people. The success of welfare reform is an example of a bipartisan solution that funded smart government programs that actually assisted people to become self-sufficient, and large numbers of people took advantage of the programs.

2) I made this point in my initial post already. The government can offer whatever services they want, people don't have to sign up for them. The very fact that spending EXPLODED in the 60's tells me that attitudes changed significantly. The economy was strong in the 60's, there was no general economic explanation for such a huge increase. In the Great Depression, welfare was generally seen as a last resort. In the 60's, it was used much more freely and with much less stigma than it formerly had. The very fact of the enormous spending increase in the absence of an economic downturn proves this to me.

I don't understand your logic at all here. "The very fact that spending EXPLODED in the 60's", according to your own initial post on the subject, is the result of Johnson's policies. You can't say that the policies created the attitude changes AND the attitude changes created the policies.

And I already addressed the Great Depression: middle class people thrown suddenly into poverty in an economic depression cannot be compared to normal economic times like the 60s. It's apples and oranges unless we have another Great Depression next year. Then you'll see a return to the good ol days of humiliated poor people.

[sailor]

ever think of slapping 3-4 of your posts together and coming out with a book? :)

seriously, tho, you should think aboot getting published.

[Yerdaddy]

ever think of slapping 3-4 of your posts together and coming out with a book? :)

seriously, tho, you should think aboot getting published.

Funny you should mention that. Most of the time I'm ranting on the board I'm avoiding what I'm supposed to be doing - writing articles for publication. Right now I'm supposed to be writing an article about some orphanages in Thailand, but somehow I'm finding it easier to argue with someone I diagree with, (even though, as I've said before, I love BDC), than to just write what I know, (I already did half a dozen interviews for the article - all I have to do is write it.)

So I guess what I should do is have someone on the board say something bad about orphanages in Thailand so I can counter-argue, then remove all the bad words and send the rant in as my article. Or I could just not be so fucking insane and just do my job.

[sailor]

Funny you should mention that. Most of the time I'm ranting on the board I'm avoiding what I'm supposed to be doing - writing articles for publication. Right now I'm supposed to be writing an article about some orphanages in Thailand, but somehow I'm finding it easier to argue with someone I diagree with, (even though, as I've said before, I love BDC), than to just write what I know, (I already did half a dozen interviews for the article - all I have to do is write it.)

So I guess what I should do is have someone on the board say something bad about orphanages in Thailand so I can counter-argue, then remove all the bad words and send the rant in as my article. Or I could just not be so fucking insane and just do my job.

i hear the thai orphanages have the hottest pre-teens in southeast asia.

[Yerdaddy]

i hear the thai orphanages have the hottest pre-teens in southeast asia.

I can't argue with that.

[underdog]

So I guess what I should do is have someone on the board say something bad about orphanages in Thailand so I can counter-argue, then remove all the bad words and send the rant in as my article. Or I could just not be so fucking insane and just do my job.

The orphanages in Thailand are run well and the children in the orphanages have only themselves to blame in being there.

Also, orphanages is easy to spell.

[sailor]

I can't argue with that.

dammit! i tried.