I'm told that welfare reform worked.

Indeed, welfare rolls have dropped by over 50%. But what does that mean? And what do we mean by "worked"? Was the goal just to shrink the rolls? And how are those folks who dropped off the rolls doing now?

It didn't work. It's created a nightmare for them and welfare recipients.

Which is exactly what they set out to do. That was the plan. Nothing more fun than beating up on the poor and the low-paid workers, ya' know?

but I was thinking maybe I'd missed something.

although we are all worried about reauthorization which changed the rules some last year. I'm legal counsel in the welfare office in my state. I've worked in welfare or related fields for 30 years.

There is no bigger bleeding heart than me. I was hired as legal counsel in our welfare office when welfare reform started (1997). I expected it would be one more failed social experiment on the backs of the poor. I was shocked to find the people who had worked in the office for many years when I was hired and who were just as much bleeding heart liberals as me thought welfare reform was a good idea.

First off, the average recipient stays on welfare something like 18 months. BEFORE welfare reform only 19% stayed on welfare over 5 years (life time). States are allowed to keep 20% on after 5 years...for life is needed (actually as long as there are dependent children). Welfare reform gave states flexability to design programs instead of one size fits all.

Second welfare reform legislation changed more than just AFDC/TANF. It increased funding for child care and changed how child care is administered (to allow people to use family members, not just licensed child care centers). It increased funding for establishing paternity and going after dead beat dads.

The welfare rolls were dropping even before welfare reform as a result of a good economy.

There is money to encourage employers to hire people coming off welfare but they don't get it if they don't keep the person employed without subsidy for a period of time after the subsidy ends.

Why,the homeless and poor are barely even noticeable anymore in the land of rape and honey!

what you meant to convey, I believe.

Nevermind. :D

"I did work" :)

:freak:

(barely visible though he was) kicked back under an overpass and reading a book! Hell, if he can read, why isn't he working?!?!

;-)

The nerve.First we give money handouts and now they want to read too? What's next,expecting to eat too?

Fuckers!

the cops said he wasn't homeless because he had a radio, so they were taking him to jail instead of the shelter!

That was the point we can't let people get any help and build a decent life can we? They should reach down and pu;ll themselves by their calluses.

The republiCON creed.

:shrug:

starving and/or freezing on the streets.

:shrug:

;)

Is there a .gov website that reports who died of starvation in the good ole USA???

The GOPer's behind it didn't really give a damn what happened to the people kicked off. The permanant underclass is a necessity of record Corp profits.

just a reminder that it was signed (and touted) by one B. Clinton.

reform legislation. It may have had Republican roots but it took a Republican lite president to push it through congress.

And a majority of Democrats in both the House and Senate voted for it. Perhaps it is not aRepublican lite issue. Perhaps some Democrats who did not like these reforms were just out of step with the Democratic Party.

If you supported it, I'm forced to include you in that number; I'd like not to think that your conservative heart is THAT brutally uncaring.

I think the states have picked up the slack and it's budgeted as something else. Look closer.

I will look closer - thanks.

So my first place to look would be at the contractors who are handling it. Are payouts funneled thru them? Or renamed to seem so?

Since checks are no longer cut, are there banks involved in the payouts?

There are a number of welfare-to-work programs where the government pays the employer to hire welfare recipients. IIRC, there was a section on my son's job application to make sure they didn't miss any welfare recipients, so they could collect the subsidy. I suspect that's where a huge amount of welfare recipients have gone. They aren't any better off, but corporations have yet another labor subsidy.

Getting a check from a corporation is a whole lot more satisfying than getting one from welfare. And the sense of achievement DOES matter. It's soul-murdering to sit on your duff, side-lined from the entire world because you are the one without a job. Especially for people who have always supported themselves.

That was the question.

And no, losing your children to the streets because you're out of the home for 10+ hours a day, is no sense of achievement at all.

and they don't do a very good job. Their main focus is to protect that revenue stream from the feds and the states.

by those who institute the programs because they define the results as well.

I'll use my deinitions, if you don't mind.

Less poverty? No, possibly more.
More opportunity? There is in Sonora for auto workers and Bangalore for call center workers (Perhaps that's success to some.)
More children in stable homes? I worked in a public library until very recently and I'll tell you hell, no.
Have the rolls been cut? Of course.

,...where people on assistance ended up or how poverty has increased rather than decreased or the number of children left behind or any of that IMPORTANTLY COMPASSIONATE STUFF?

Personally, I thought working for assistance was a great idea: no one had to apologize for getting help because they contributed whatever they were able. But, that isn't how the "new selfish GOPer deal" worked (approved by Clinton), at all.

The results would be quite impactful, if anyone kept track of the impact upon the men, women and children bucked-off assistance. But, no one supporting the bill was genuinely interested in the outcome upon human beings, upon Americans.

Got repeated again on DU today - I forget the thread.

edit: oh yeah, it's over in GD: P, thread about the DLC.

there have been many "leaver studies"

...putting on flame suit.

And certainly one goal was to reduce the rolls. The biggest problem with the old system, IMHO, was that there was little incentive to find a job other than a personal desire to be off welfare. For a small percentage of people, that was no incentive--some seemed to be happy to stay on welfare forever. The biggest problem with this is that they raised kids that lacked an adult example of how life is "supposed" to work: i.e., you have a job that pays the bills. The statistics clearly showed that kids who are raised in that type of environment were way more likely to end up on welfare themselves than people who grew up in homes without welfare. Thus the concern about a "cycle of poverty".

How do you fix that problem? I have no idea, but it seems to me that what welfare reform asked of people was not asking too much. Critics love to point out that under the new system a person cannot receive welfare for more than five years. However, they ignore the fact that the new system allowed states to exempt 20% of the people on the rolls from this requirement. I.e., it was decided that 20% of the people on welfare might in fact be worthy of receiving assistance for their entire lives. Is this harsh? I never thought so. Moreover, the bill added numerous other provisions that provided training and child care to help people get into jobs that could support themselves and their families.

When you asked a critic of the reform if they supported the idea of moving people off welfare and onto work they would say yes. However, anytime you started talking about the details of how you actually accomplish that they would cry foul. It's as if they endorsed the goal but not any of the possible solutions...

A link you might read:

http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/110489.html

Working moms can get health care for their kids, and sometimes child care assistance too. That's the only part of welfare reform that worked. That's what was keeping moms on welfare. The rest of your post is right wing bullshit. Anybody who was unable to maintain employment in the 80's isn't able to maintain employment now. It's called mental illness and we don't have a safety net for it.

Is it your assertion that more than 20% of the people on welfare in 1996 were mentally ill?

There have been studies that have shown the hard-core unemployed ALL have mental/emotional issues of some sort.

Link?

You wouldn't believe it anyway.

The unemployment rate for people with severe and persistent mental disorders hovers at 90% (U.S. Surgeon General Report on Mental Health, 1999).

One in every five people, or about 54 million Americans, experience some type of mental disorder each year.

http://mhafc.org/mhs.htm

The unemployment rate for people with severe and persistent mental disorders hovers at 90% (U.S. Surgeon General Report on Mental Health, 1999).

One in every five people, or about 54 million Americans, experience some type of mental disorder each year.


Did you really think I wouldn't notice?

What we need to know is the number of people with severe and persistent mental disorders...

Did you read the rest of the link? Anybody who takes it as a whole could only conclude that the chronic unemployed have mental and emotional issues. I didn't spent much time on it because I knew it wouldn't matter to you anyway. Your beliefs are as set in stone as George Bush's.

I'm sure that people with persistent mental and emotional issues suffer from chronic unemployment. I just doubt that there are over 4 million of those people in the US.

It's in the link.

So you are doing exactly what I said you'd do - ignore any link that challenges your belief system.

Yes, your link says that 1 in 5 American experience some type of mental disorder each year. Unfortunately that is not the statistic we are looking for. What we are looking for is the number of Americans that suffer from severe and persistent mental disorders. The reason we need to know that number is because that is the group that suffers from chronic unemployment, not the group that suffer from occasional disorders.

How do I know this? Simple. You said it in post #47.

So please stop the nonsense about me being the one who doesn't listen. You are the one who isn't listening. I said that we needed the statistic on how many Americans suffer severe and persistent mental disorders in post #63. I said it again in post #80. I'm saying it again now. The only question is, will you listen this time?

As I said, if you read ALL the statistics, ALL the information you were seeking is there.

"28% to 30% of the U.S. population has a mental health disorder, substance abuse disorder, or both (National Mental Health Association, 2002).

Serious mental illnesses affect more than 10 million Americans, nearly half of who have severe and persistent disorders (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, 1997). FRANKLIN COUNTY: Serious mental illnesses affect more than 41,000 people in Franklin County, over 20,500 of whom have severe and persistent disorders."

So yes, more than 4 million Americans suffer from severe and persistent disorders.

Would you agree then that 5 million people suffer from severe and persistent disorders?

I would agree that that's what this one report says, which is higher than the 4 million figure that you already said was too high.

I ask you for a source specifying have many people in the country suffer from severe and persistent mental illness, you provide such a source, and then say you don't like what it says.

Does that about sum up where we are at this point--i.e., me wasting my time?

I said the majority of people who are chronically unemployed, and consequently chronically on welfare, are emotionally and mentally disturbed.

You said they're lazy.

I gave you a link with a variety of statistics that dispute your claim. I can't verify the 100% accuracy of every statistic, I don't know where they all came from.

You don't give a shit, you want to play mind-fuck games.

And that, about sums up where we are at this point. You're wasting your time because you want to, because you refuse to acknowlege that the statistics have refuted your belief system about welfare and the chronically unemployed.

Keep in mind that these are your numbers, not mine.

In 1996 we had 12.3 million people on welfare. Today we have 4.4 million. Your link shows us that 90% of people with severe and persistent mental illness suffer from chronic unemployment, and that there are 5 million people like that. Now 90% of 5 million is 4.5 million people, it looks to me like welfare reform got everybody that was capable of working off the rolls and most of those who really needed help stayed on. Was it perfect? No, but no goverment program is.

Anybody who is in touch with reality knows that the mentally ill aren't getting assistance. They're wandering the streets and living in homeless shelters. You're oblivious, you really are.

The mentally ill are not getting the assistence they need. What I dispute is the notion that the mentally ill are the ones that got kicked off the rolls as a result of welfare reform. Some certainly did, but the numbers I used from your own link support the idea that most of the people that got kicked off were not mentally ill.

What the fuck are you talking about now?

You said the people who have traditionally been on welfare for extended periods are lazy, you bought into the entire generational welfare bullshit.

I said, no, it is well known that the chronically unemployed have emotional and mental issues, they're the ones on welfare for long periods of time. I gave you a ton of numbers that would have raised the eyebrows of any human being with a shred of compassion or decency.

But not you. You just dance around and now try to change the terms of the debate altogether. I never said everybody left on welfare is mentally ill, and I never said everybody who is mentally ill got kicked off. You just completely made that shit up.

I said, as a percentage of the population as a whole, you are ALWAYS going to have people on welfare because they can't hold jobs because the chronically unemployed have emotional and/or mental issues. I've posted the statistics to prove what I said.

You can continue to deny it, as I'm sure you will. I don't know why it matters to you. You NEVER have to worry about this country causing you any suffering in order to help the poor.

I said, as a percentage of the population as a whole, you are ALWAYS going to have people on welfare because they can't hold jobs because the chronically unemployed have emotional and/or mental issues. I've posted the statistics to prove what I said.

I agree with this. As your statistics proved, we've got around 5 million chronically mentally ill people in this country, 90% of whom cannot hold down a job as a result--that makes 4.5 million mentally ill, unemployed people. And yes, you demonstrated quite conclusively that my assertion that there were less then 4 million chronically ill people in the country was wrong. However, you have proved absolutely nothing about the nearly 8 million people that were on welfare in 1996 and now are off welfare. Are they all mentally ill? No, your own statistics prove they can't all be...

"For a small percentage of people, that was no incentive--some seemed to be happy to stay on welfare forever."

You were wrong. That percentage never existed. It was always a lie that anybody was happy to stay on welfare forever. Many of those people are simply in different programs. Many are in job programs where the welfare money is channeled through Walmart or Safeway, and the people get MORE money in the way of food stamps, housing, child care, energy assistance, etc. Because welfare was always POVERTY. That's the part of welfare reform that worked, somewhat, because that's the part the majority of moms had been asking for for 20 years.

The rest, the chronic welfare recipient, are NOT lazying around, happy to stay on welfare forever. They have various mental and emotional issues. Not down the line, 100%, but generally speaking.

You remain - oblivious.

And the fact that nearly 8 million people that were on welfare in 1996 magically turned out to be perfectly capable of working in the years following welfare reform proves that point conclusively.

I would not consider people on SSI due to permanent disability as on welfare. I don't know if the government measures it that way though.

people who are mentally ill stay on welfare...there is no time limit (they are part of the 20% and get extended for life or the length of their illness). However, not many long term mentally ill are on welfare at all but are on social security disability. If they are not on SSI, they are eligible for welfare.

:P :hi:, Nederland.

Perhaps it did, but I'm still wondering how. I'm still willing to concede that the rolls were reduced (which is fairly meaningless in the absence of the rest, imho), but I still don't see anything out there that says that poor kids are being somehow taught the value of work, or what (or how) their parents are doing now, etc.

However, anytime you started talking about the details of how you actually accomplish that they would cry foul.

I cried foul then, but we did it anyway, and it's been eleven years. How's it working for us?

...to be the most right wing person on DU. :)

I think that anytime a kid grows up in an environment where mom or dad (or both) go off to work is an improvement over one where their parents don't go off to work. Sometimes I think that all you'd have to do is make the parents go away for 8 hours, play cards among themselves, and tell their kids they went to "work" and you'd be better off. The key point is that kids need to learn that working is the natural state of things. The necessities of life--food, clothing and shelter--don't simply magically appear, they are products of work. Work is therefore part of the natural order of things and learning that is an important part of growing up.

It is also important to note that welfare reform happened at just the right time. It was enacted during the boom times of the late 90's when unemployment was very low and the economy was able to absorb 2-4 million new workers very easily. The fact that critics claimed that welfare reform would result in millions more unemployed, and that prediction was dead wrong speaks volumes.

:D

I think that anytime a kid grows up in an environment where mom or dad (or both) go off to work is an improvement over one where their parents don't go off to work.

I don't think that's entirely true. Not saying that parents who don't work are the ideal, but neither is a set of careerists with no time to simply be human. In my experience, that fucks up a kid as much as the opposite. And who says work is "the natural state of things"? ;-)

It is also important to note that welfare reform happened at just the right time. It was enacted during the boom times of the late 90's when unemployment was very low and the economy was able to absorb 2-4 million new workers very easily. The fact that critics claimed that welfare reform would result in millions more unemployed, and that prediction was dead wrong speaks volumes.

Maybe the right time politically. Note that the five-year deadline came in 2001, just as the boom times disappeared and the unemployed could be absorbed into the numbers from the recession. Neat-o, huh?

How's your daughter?

show me your test scores

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1126402&mesg_id=1127069

but I am not gonna defend welfare reform. In fact, I stumbled across this article the other day

http://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=184

"Ten years after welfare reform recipients decline while poverty rate increases
Safety net of services and support that once protected the poor lies in tatters"

"A deeper look, however, reveals a mixed bag of significant successes as well as glaring failures."

but he's *our* free-range capitalist. :D

Doesn't that say it all, really?

Fucking GRRRRR!

Corporatist Yellow-Dog Dems make me SICK!

but that's a good thing, isn't it? Look at all the initiative they are showing. Pulling themselves up by their own Saturday Night Specials, and it's so much better from a social standpoint to spend $10,000 a year on a prisoner than it is to spend that on social programs. Seems to be a Republican value.

Good to see you Redqueen :hi: but I think you mean 'Blue' dog Democrat, that is the DINO coalition. A yellow dog is somebody like me, who will vote for a yellow dog if that is the Democratic candidate. Trouble is, in a red state like this, the yellow dog I vote for ends up being a blue dog, as in Nancy Boyda, Dennis Moore, and Kathleen Sebelius. Kansas does not even really have a Democratic party. The voters choice is between a moderate Republican who is running as a Democrat or the Republican, who is all too often very far-right. Blue dogs suck, but usually they are better than the alternative.

Blue Dog Dems? They are the Republican Lites. Yellow Dogs are those who never fail to vote Democratic.

Pretty huge mistake there. :blush:

The goal of reducing welfare dependence, as measured by reducing the number of people getting welfare, has been attained," a recent story posted at religionlink.org noted. "At the end of 1996, 12.3 million people were on welfare. At the end of 2005, almost 4.4 million people received assistance, a drop of almost 65 percent. Yet even as the number of people receiving welfare has declined, the poverty rate in this country has risen four years in a row, creating a confusing picture of life at the bottom of the economic ladder.


The author has presented is the following facts:

1) The number of people on welfare rolls dropped from 12.3 million to 4.4 million
2) The poverty rate has risen four years in a row.

So here is my question. Don't you find it incredible odd that the author choses to specify very precisely how many people dropped off welfare during the time period in question, but completely fails to specify very precisely how many people dropped below the poverty line?

You think it would be a mark of success if poverty was not increased by 7.9 million? I am pretty sure that poverty is measured before government assistance, and not after. The point being that the 7.9 million moved off the welfare rolls, but either did not move out of poverty, or were replaced by other people who moved into poverty plus a few thousand more.

Okay, I just checked, and I was wrong about the measure being before. AFDC would count. However, prior to welfare reform it is likely that AFDC payments were not sufficient to lift very many people out of poverty. What is their point then? The point was that they lifted people up. A person getting an AFDC payment of $700 a month may still be poor, but they are not as poor as they would be without the $700 a month.

However, prior to welfare reform it is likely that AFDC payments were not sufficient to lift very many people out of poverty.

You have absolutely no basis for that statement. In fact, it is completely unfathomable why anyone would think it were true. You are basially saying that there is an income range of around $8000 where very few people exist. That is just plain impossible quite frankly, and I think you know it must be impossible.

According to the Census bureau in 1999 there were 25 million people over the age of 15 who made less than $5,000 and another 26 million with income between $5 and $10,000. Of those 51 million people, only 16 million of them were in the 15-24 age bracket. The poverty threshold in 1999 for two people was $11,214, for 3 - $13,290, and for 4 - $17,029. I have no data for AFDC payments. Taking the total spent on TANF in 1999 divided by the number of families getting it, gives me an average of $10,177. So if TANF is the only source of income, at least recorded, then it is not sufficient to put even a family of two over the poverty line.

However, if you could look at the people getting not only TANF, but as seems likely, also section 8 housing, and food stamps and medicaid, then they are certainly over the poverty line, BUT, that is not how poverty is measured.

If the poverty line is $11,214 for a household of two people and households like those can receive $8,000 in assistance, then any household making between $3,215 and $11,214 (probably most of the people beneath the poverty line, given that $3,213 is a really low number) has been lift above the poverty line by those assistance payment.

It doesn't really matter that you don't have the data for AFDC payments (although I would be curious to see them). The math looks like this:

If:

X = poverty line
Y = assistance

then

anyone making between X and X-Y+1 has been lifted above the poverty line.

I don't think they do.

You seem to think that most of the people getting AFDC are also working jobs, as if they have $6,000 worth of income from a part-time job and also get $8,000 in AFDC. If that is the case, then what is the point of 'workfare' or encouraging/forcing them to get jobs? Do you think that welfare moms are receiving child support income as well as AFDC?

Even IF that is true (and I would like to see some evidence) I think the system is set up so that the more income you have, the less assistance you get. I know food stamps are that way. Thus a woman with $5,000 in child support income maybe only gets $5,000 in AFDC.

Until you show me a study, and certainly Cato or Heritage will have done one, showing that many AFDC recipients have other income, besides government assistance, there is no math to do. My hypothesis is that their total income was generally $0 + AFDC, for most AFDC recipients.

I can't believe that it isn't common knowledg that you CAN'T have income and get a TANF benefit. Oh, maybe if it were $50 or something. Otherwise, no way.

And welfare keeps most of the child support, that's the only reason they give a shit about collecting it, it goes back into the welfare fund.

And there hasn't been such a thing as AFDC since welfare reform.

Thank you for attempting to set the record straight, but man oh jeezo, it would be helpful if you got a better handle on the facts.

Whether AFDC payments would have lifted somebody out of poverty. I figured there were income limitations, or a sliding scale that cut benefits as income went up.

No reason those things should be common knowledge unless you know somebody in the system or working in social services. I probably could have looked it up fairly easily. Interesting about social services taking the child support payments. That changes both the funding picture and the benefits picture.

I thought that was common knowledge too. It's very frustrating to me that people who vote on this stuff don't even know what they're voting on.

close to half the people on TANF are working

They even take your child support payment. You can't receive any significant amount of money and receive TANF. Like I said, maybe fifty bucks or so, but you won't qualify even with as much as a part time minimum wage job.

which is the average sized family on TANF.

My state is certainly NOT a very generous state, my guess, without knowing, is most states allow more.

What's the payment amount, $400?? It doesn't really matter what the gross income is. What matters is the formula they use to calculate your payment and it doesn't take very much income to offset that $400. That's why people with any income to really speak of, don't qualify for a cash payment. They might get TANF medical benefits or other programs specific to TANF, but they won't get a monthly check.

I don't know off the top of my head what the sliding scale is but I don't understand why you say it doesn't matter what the gross income is. That is the gross income limit for TANF in my state.

The first $100 they earn does not count and only 50% of each $ they earn after that $100 is counted. The maxium cash assistance (TANF) is $474. They do not get the full $474 if they earn $1,049 but they do get a monthly "check" (cash payent on an EBT card) if they earn up to $1,049.

I also don't know what TANF medical benefits are. We don't have them in our state, or at least we don't call them that. If they are funded by TANF it is handled in a different agency from mine. We have Medicaid with about a zillion programs depending on income, age, disability etc. The only other TANF programs we have provide some benefits for people whose income is actually higher (on a more temporary basis) and some educational funding for people whose income is over $1,050 (for a family of 3).

There is child care funding too which is based on the state median income. The income limit for child care is $2,479 for a household of 3. The maximum payment is $564 per child per month (depending on type of child care and age of the child, that amount will go up in the next month or two by about $30 per month) of course that payment will be less the closer the household gets to $2,479 income per month.

If they make $750, a 30 hr a week minimum wage job, after they take your exceptions, they will STILL be over the $474 so they won't get a check. Just because there's a gross income limit, it does not equate that anybody under that limit will get a check. It just doesn't work that way. There are other TANF programs, various emergency programs and medical programs besides Medicaid, and the TANF eligibility applies to those too. It isn't used ONLY to calculate a cash benefit.

if they make $750 per month only $325 is counted as income so they are below 100% of the Standard Needs Budget ($568) and below the $474 and they will get a cash payment each month. There is also a dependent care deduction and a child support (if the family PAYS child support) that can be deducted from the $325 resulting in a larger payment. (We are talking EARNED income here. The formula is different for unearned income.)

Yes, we have emergency assistance, it might well be funded by TANF, I'm not the budget person so I don't know. We also have TANF Needy Family which is 200% of poverty which is funded out of TANF moneys and we have transitional cash assistance (TCA) which has NO income limit but that might be state funded. Again, I don't remember all the budget stuff. TCA pays two months of full benefits ($474 in our example) plus one month at 50% of that amount regardless of how much money the family earns. So, when a family hits the income limit they can get a bit more help for basically two and a half months.

I write the statutes and rules for my state so I'm pretty familiar with federal and state law, I just don't remember for sure whether the emergency "TANF" or transitional "TANF" are federal dollars or maintenance of effort (state dollars we are required to pay to get the federal funds.)

All states are different. There is no set limit (that I know of) for income of benefit amount nationally. My state is probabaly (wild guess) below average but not in the bottom 25% of states.

$474 - $425 = $49.

It's wrong to lead people to believe people with next to nothing for incomes to begin with, are getting any kind of real cash assistance. They aren't.

In my state a family of 3 gets about $425 per month in TANF money plus about the same in food stamps.

Although the table said - payments to individuals, I think what they measured was 'the cost of the program' which would include 'payments to individuals + overhead and administrative costs'. The program may cost an average of $10,000 per family served, but that is not the amount that actually gets to the needy.

Moms don't live on less than $8,000 a year? Is that what you're saying?

Here's the average family assistance payment since 1936.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2005/9g.html

What I'm saying is that the idea that AFDC doesn't lift people out of poverty is ridiculous. If a person receives $8000 a year in assistance, then anyone making $7999 less than the poverty line or more has been lifted above the poverty line. Its just simple math.

The poverty line for a family of 3 is $16,600. The monthly TANF payment is $4-500. On what universe does that math add up?

You want to add food stamps? Maybe another $300 a month.

Still doesn't lift them out of poverty.

When are you going to admit you do not know what the fuck you're talking about.

are NOT counted in the official measure of poverty

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/povdef.html#1

Oddly enough, capital gains do not count either. I guess because they are more sporadic than other income. Unlike a dividend check, they would be harder to rely on. Still, according to this measure a person could be a day-trader, making an average of $1,000 a week and still officially poor.

You say the poverty line is $16,600.

You say that food stamps are $300 a month ($3600 a year).

Therefore...

Anyone making between $13,001 and $16,600 a year can be lifted above the poverty line by food stamps.


QED

So that limits the discussion to AFDC/TANF, and, as I mentioned, twice, non cash benefits like food stamps and housing subsidies, are not counted when officially calculating poverty. Thus a family making $14,000 and getting $3,000 in food stamps would still be considered below the poverty line by the official count, which is what we, or the article, are talking about.

Yes, a family making $14,000 and getting $3,000 in food stamps will still officially be considered below the poverty line. However, it also true that the addition of food stamps has in reality lifted them above the poverty line. The only way you could say otherwise is to say the the $3,000 they received in food stamps had no value at all. Obviously you don't believe that.

whether the official measure of poverty measures actual poverty. That's different issue.

The article said that # of welfare recipients went down while # in poverty went up. That is not because welfare had been lifting people out of poverty. It likely was not, and was never meant to. The purpose of welfare was/is to keep poor people, particularly children, from starving, freezing, turning to crime, or becoming homeless. Also, the food stamp program was not affected by welfare reform.

and never experience hunger?

what benefit accrues from dipping in the swimming pool (or taking rugby lessons or getting high with prep school buddies or traveling the continent or enduring yet another tutoring session) or listening to daddy make money from money?

upon what basis do you make the claim that having both parents absent for 8 hours each day can aid in a child's development to any significant degree?

or is that just for SOME people?

During the Reagan years mental hospitals were closed, and that was one class of homeless along with and including vets from Vietnam.

Then the welfare reform brought more homeless.

And the bankruptcy bill will bring more than ever.

:shrug:

Depends on how you define success.

:eyes:

Yay!

Without a means to do job training for all the people on welfare, it's pretty useless. They end up making wages, but not being allowed to be on benefits and in some cases their kids can't be on them.

when one's unemployment benefits run out, so, too, is welfare reform considered a success when people are kicked off the welfare rolls. It doesn't mean people are no longer poor, it just means the job of dealing with poverty has been shifted from the government to the state and then to the private sector in the form of food pantries.

other Americans? How sad we have set the bar so low.

however, I think work should pay a living wage. For some it doesn't pay to work if one must pay for childcare out of paltry wages.

Simply shifting the problem onto states or reclassifying the people who get assistance under some other state or government run program isn't solving the underlying problems of economic inequity. I dare say we are looking at nothing short of economic segregation.

Impossible because our system requires that some be impoverished, and too easy because we can't officially cop to the previous fact.

right up there with NAFTA and media deregulation.

go big dog. whoopee. :eyes:

since he campaigned on this issue in the primaries.

So maybe they just got fooled like you.

USAmericans can be so gullible and trusting at times.

we need more Dems like lip-bitin' bill...



or not.

it put fire under some folks who weren't rushing to get their shit together. I'm talking about people who are able to work but needed a bit of help getting there - NOT the disabled etc.. who's set of circumstances are different.

I have a friend who wanted to be a stay home mom though she was single. She seriously did not see anything wrong with staying on welfare so she could do so. Due to reforms she slowly lost her benefits and now works and loves working. She always had the babysitting etc. to help care for her kids so she didn't have those issues to deal with.

I have NO problem with getting people like her back to work and it was the right thing for her.

A friend had 4 kids and living off of welfare. Was 'forced' to do something about it, now she's a nurse and her kids grew into good people.

I think it helps break the 'habit' of living off the government yet still provides a safety net for the people that fall into bad times.

I'd suspect not often.

:hi:

BUT for those who needed that little kick in the butt - it was what they needed.

I have no illusions that the right-wing image of a welfare mom is a lazy bum who drives a cadillac. However, there are some who get comfy with the situation. Those are usually the ones who live with their parent and aren't the sole supporter for housing etc. Those are the ones I have a problem with.

ANYONE who needs help getting on and staying on their feet should get it - I never want to live in a society where those in need are ignored. But, some people just need the kickstart to get going too.

That seems to be the biggest problem, IMO, with welfare to work.

No problem there with me.

care so people going off welfare could still get child care and medicaid.

and massive holes.

No one who lives from paycheck to paycheck, let alone those who, for whatever reason, can't make a living wage, is "safe."

you see- they really DID make up half the welfare rolls.





:sarcasm:

It seems to me that Poverty has only decreased for the 65 year and older group, probably more related to Social Security payouts than Welfare. Interestingly enough, it appears that poverty hit its lowest level in the 1970s, before all this "welfare reform".

keeps expectations low so employers get a better deal, don'tcha know

middle class @$$#()!&s just ignore it all... or blame the poor... "get better jobs" they say. ain't that nice? idiots.

:kick:

therefore decent wages and benefits have been hacked too, which also puts the working class at a disadvantage.

Another way of looking at poverty is in relative terms. "Relative poverty" can be defined as having significantly less access to income and wealth than other members of society. Therefore, the relative poverty rate can directly be linked to income inequality. When the standard of living among those in more financially advantageous positions rises while that of those considered poor stagnates, the relative poverty rate will reflect such growing income inequality and increase. Conversely, the poverty rate can decrease, with low income people coming to have less wealth and income if wealthier people's wealth is reduced by a larger percentage than theirs. In 1959, a family at the poverty line had an income that was 42.64% of the median income. Thus, a poor family in 1999 had relatively less income and therefore relatively less purchasing power than wealthier members of society in 1959, and, therefore, "poverty" had increased. But, because this is a relative measure, this is not saying that a family in 1999 with the same amount of wealth and income as a family from 1959 had less purchasing power than the 1959 family.

In the EU, "relative poverty" is defined as an income below 60% of the national median equalized disposable income after social transfers for a comparable household. In Germany, for example, the official relative poverty line for a single adult person in 2003 was 938 euros per month (11,256 euros/year, $12,382 PPP. West Germany 974 euros/month, 11,688 euros/year, $12,857 PPP). For a family of four with two children below 14 years the poverty line was 1969.8 euros per month ($2,167 PPP) or 23,640 euros ($26,004 PPP) per year. According to Eurostat the percentage of people in Germany living at risk of poverty (relative poverty) in 2004 was 16% (official national rate 13.5% in 2003). Additional definitions for poverty in Germany are "poverty" (50% median) and "strict poverty" (40% median, national rate 1.9% in 2003). Generally the percentage for "relative poverty" is much higher than the quota for "strict poverty". The U.S concept is best comparable to "strict poverty". By European standards the official (relative) poverty rate in the United States would be significantly higher than it is by the U.S. measure. A research paper from the OECD calculates the relative poverty rate for the United States at 16% for 50% median of disposable income and nearly 24% for 60% of median disposable income<10> (OECD average: 11% for 50% median, 16% for 60% median).

Like universal health care and if we invested more in early childhood education and day care. Single mothers can't go to work and leave their young children unsupervised.

And marriage incentives are ridiculous.

The biggest problem with Welfare Reform was that Clinton had to sign it before the '96 election so he could campaign on it, therefore the Republicans could pressure him to put provisions in that he didn't want.

We need to increase the minimum wage to about $9 an hour, too.

the world needs peons. how else would we get a steady supply of cheap, expendable labor?

The poor are the expendable pawns in the great strategies of the wannabee bosses who will undercut them while proclaiming that they're "helping" them.

However, as far as serving people, it is a failure. You can't just tell people that they're cut off without providing support services for them. You have to phase in things like welfare reform. It took many generations to get us here, it will take a couple of generations to get out if it.

Believe me. I worked in this field for more than twenty years. In NY, one of the more "generous" States for Welfare, a single mom with one child on total welfare would have to get by with around $500 month - for rent, utilities, all non-food household products, all school expenses, all clothing and shoes. Forget any recreation, gifts, etc. Forget even books, unless Mom had bus money to go to the Library - which she didn't. And contrary to popular belief, the amount added to the grant per child did not come anywhere near the expenses for an additional child. Yes, if someone received the max of EVERY POSSIBLE BENEFIT - most importantly subsidized housing - it was bearable, barely. However, Section 8 only serves a fraction of those eligible - even the waiting list around here - and I'm sure in other parts of the Country - would be closed for years. It's been a while now, so I can't give exact figures, but the families that I worked with generally had welfare grants that added up to approx half the Federal Poverty Level for the # in the household - and the PL, remember, is defined as the absolute minimum required to sustain rent and a (not very nutritious) diet. And is so dated in its' formulation that it doesn't even amount to that.

Most people on welfare always cycled on and off - finding a low-wage job, working a while, losing it because of a sick child, a Day Care problem, a health problem of their own, getting fired because the bus ran late. Very few people ever want to be on welfare. Going down to "the welfare" to beg for emergency money to keep your apartment, or keep the electric on, or to "re-certify" for your paltry subsidy is a humiliating experience. Having accompanied many on such trips, I can attest to the contemptuous treatment they received all too often - and that with a "professional" at their side as an advocate. It was worse without one. (I have no intent to bash welfare workers here - they are not very well paid for demanding and difficult work and carry impossible case-loads. The culture of the "welfare" often encourages demeaning and contemptuous treatment of clients. All of this became noticeably worse after welfare 'reform.")

However, prior to welfare "reform" a single parent could retain benefits while going to a two-year college, meaning that people could get education/training for jobs in health care, for instance, that at least gave them a shot at earning a sustaining wage. Now, the regulations make this just about impossible - I would say impossible, but there is always a brave and exceptional soul who somehow makes it work, usually at enormous sacrifice for both him/herself and the child. However, policy determined by the occasional exception leads to ridiculous stances such as because one exceptionally gifted basketball player makes it out of the inner city then anyone can do it if they just try. Not with a sickly child you can't. Not if the bus lines take you four hours a day to get to and from anywhere you can't.

The rhetoric that pushed the demand for welfare "reform" was Right-wing spin. People on welfare who did not have children under five (when I started, now I believe it is three months) have always had to seek work and/or to perform "work relief" (non-waged labor) to keep their benefits. Most of the people on "work relief" were single men (occasionally single women) who were long-term beneficiaries. And most of them, if you looked into it, had some variant of mental illness, or a partially disabling physical condition, or a combination of both.

If you want to know what welfare "reform" has done, look up the stats on homeless families - not single adults, but parents with children, many of them, believe it or not, working. And yes, look at the poverty levels in this Country - particularly child poverty rates and infant mortality, which rival some third world Countries, if I remember aright.

The people who dropped "off the roles" were rarely followed up. When a phone was disconnected, they disappeared.

Usually, when I talk about this people say, "well, the answer is education for good jobs." First, welfare "reform" has made that virtually impossible, and second, let me ask this:

Assume we can magically not only train/educate every person who is or could/should be on welfare but fix whatever ails them to make them job ready and hirable. Where are these good jobs for all of them?

This fixation on welfare "reform" simply ignores the reality of not only people who's life history has made them virtually unemployable but that we don't have the jobs. And that the forces of Cheap Labor want a disposable Labor pool.

Even Nixon talked about the possibility of a guaranteed National Income. How far we have come. The poor are more invisible, more demeaned, more demonetized than ever. Our inner cities decline ever further into Third World war zones, isolated, decrepit, with no jobs anywhere near or on a bus line, schools without books or enough teachers, violent streets, and populations either numbed or killing each other as a result of the combination of neglect and the results of our insane "war on drugs." These are our "blue" bastions - and what did the Clinton years give them? More insane "war on drugs" and welfare "reform." Someday these cities will explode again, I think, and people will wonder why.

Not that life for the rural poor is better. The worst conditions I've ever seen people live in were among the rural poor. And while they were less likely to be shot on the road in front of the house, what often went on in the house was as awful and dangerous, particularly for women, and most particularly for children. Ever wonder why there is such a thriving trade in meth in rural Counties? There's no jobs there, either, except in the prisons we build out there.

We have ignored the poor since Reagan, and that includes the Democrats, and most especially includes Clinton. We'll pay the piper someday, unless they manage to lock everyone up, which they are in a fair way to accomplishing with the insane "drug war." Or maybe people can take turns - this week you're the prisoner, next week you're the guard - we don't offer them anything much else, out here in the real world.

Thank you, so much.

:yourock:

to the success of the Right Wing in shaping the debate in this Country - in framing the issues. Even many supposedly "liberals" - especially, I think, young ones who grew up post-1980 and have never heard anything else - buy into these myths without any awareness of history, of what has happened to the safety net in this Country, of the neglect of poverty issues for going on thirty years, the abandonment of the inner cities, the destructive effect of our insane drug policies, etc.

It is good to see so many in this thread not buying into those myths, though. I have been here since '03, and my memory (not always that reliable) is that a much greater % of responses parroted the right wing on the issue of welfare in the first few such threads I read on this site. I have to wonder if some of those responders have not seen relatives, friends, acquaintances, former work-mates plummet into poverty over these past few years and learned a bit about it first-hand. Or maybe the winds of change are blowing again - hope springs, I guess.

And thanks for your encouragement. I have noted others here over the years who consistently speak up for the economically marginalized, disenfranchised, and oppressed. It's good to know you and they are out there.

"Assume we can magically not only train/educate every person who is or could/should be on welfare but fix whatever ails them to make them job ready and hirable. Where are these good jobs for all of them?"

In a time when lots of college grads have difficulty finding jobs, people are still peddling this nonsense about "more education!" Give me a break!

No health insurance, no unemployment, no pension, twelve years of college including a doctorate, three college degrees -- can't get an interview cuz I'm over 40 and overqualified.

SO has a BS and MS in physics and a video production degree -- he cant find anything either. He was canned from his poverty level job a year ago so I've gotta sell my house and move.

That's the whole picture, right there. I particularly like your comment about education, even if we could educate every single underpaid American (and I don't think we can), where are all these great paying jobs anyway. They just aren't there. If the investor class doesn't want to pay living wages to those who pamper them, then they'll have to pay taxes to pay for the subsidies. There's no other way around it.

It's good to know that some people get it.
edit for typo

many if not most states allow at least 2 years of education still.

:kick:

Yeah, it worked brilliantly... ask the chick featured in Michael Moore's 'Bowling for Columbine' - the one who traveled a town over to work for $4 an hour at a Dick Clark owned fast food joint. Her son shot a little girl in school. But hey, at least she was off welfare when the incident happened. So yeah, I guess the "experts" are right. :sarcasm:

You can look up the year by year growth in most counties. In mine it's up to 42,000 recipients. A few years ago it was in the teens.

Plus the homeless count keeps going up so I'd say Clinton's welfare reform sucked.

Our country - and citizens - is so ignorantly heartless so often.

Be nice. ;-)

Because they can't pay the electricity bills, and keep the doors and windows closed and locked because of crime.

That's a good way to get rid of the old and frail. Our society doesn't care.

A horrendous decision -- but evidently DU's would like more of that kind of thinking!!!