This was true before the Clinton welfare reforms of the 1990's. Now it is difficult to get welfare at all if you are not the parent of dependent children, you must participate in job training and job placement programs, and there is a 3-year limit. The welfare rolls are down. There is no longer an incentive to procreate without a husband to get a government check. Now there needs to be reform in government subsidized section 8 housing.
That is bass-ackwards and proven to be incredibly stupid. Bush tried it and it failed spectacularly. If you try to starve government of income, they just borrow money, especially the republicans. No, you must cut programs FIRST. Then the freed-up money can be cut.
Difficult to get? Welfare $$ spent on illegal immigrants has gone from $500 to $600 million in LA County alone in just one year. And those folks aren't citizens. Not to mention that federal spending on TANF for instance, has been held fairly constant at somewhat less than $20B per year. However....you stated difficulty for those who are not parents of dependent children and my point was very specific as to the war on women as demonstrated by their continuing dependence on government aid to have children. Let me debunk a tad more. Are there really safeguards in place to keep welfare in check? Credits, cheating, and exemptions have rendered much of the 1996 reform to be grossly ineffective. Feds mandated time limits but states were allowed to exempt up to 20 percent and were also allowed to use their own funds to continue benefits. So-called children only cases where the child is eligible for welfare, but the adult is not, are NOT subject to federal time limits. Those cases account for almost half of the TANF caseload. States were required to have at least 50% of recipients from single parent families participating in "work activities", for 2 parents homes the requirement is 90%. However, due to credits and exemptions, the effective minimum work participation requirement in 2006 was only 5% for singles and 18.7% for 2 parents. And for 17 states, the credits have reduced the effective work requirement to ZERO and only 21 states have effective minimums greater than 10%. As of 2009, only 32% of welfare recipients were working.....and even that includes "work activities" including looking for a job, not necessarily actively employed. So basically the federal reform hasn't done nearly what you wish it had. As for incentives being reduced for single mothers? Not so much. In 1965 less than 8% of all births were to single mothers. In 2010 it was at 39%. If welfare largesse and then welfare reform were effective, why does the number of single mothers giving birth continue to increase? There is a significant link between welfare and single parents. Children living with single mothers are seven times more likely to be poor than those living with 2 parents. More than 20% of single moms start on welfare because they are pregnant and 75% of government aid goes to single parent families. They also tend to stay on welfare for longer periods than other recipients. In the 1950's, 85% of unwed mothers ended up marrying the fathers. The availability of welfare has made that an incentive to stay single. Young mothers and pregnant women are less likely to marry baby daddys in states with higher welfare benefits. 70% of those would no longer be in poverty if they married baby daddy. Welfare dependency attitudes and habits are easily pathologically transmitted through generations. The rate of welfare dependence for children raised in welfare is far higher than for their non-welfare counterparts. As they become adults, their income levels are also lower. Nearly 20% of daughters from highly dependent families became highly dependent themselves compared to only 3% from non-welfare daughters. There is also a psychological attitude toward work that can develop among those on welfare. Studies have found that the poor on welfare do not have a strong sense that they need to take charge of their own lives or find work to become self-sufficient, that the government has an obligation to take care of them. Government dependence is still being fostered and embedded in the Democratic approach to fixing things and the biggest target in that war is women, all the while claiming that Republicans are at war with them. Laughable.
must be a republican approach as well, says wall street and TARP. must be a Paul Ryan approach as well after he argued for stimilus and tarp under the Bush Administration. your argument is easily refuted that its a democratic approach to fixing problems. Just like you have to join the army to get the GI bill (government dependent program) you have to work in a set amount of time to get welfare.
There are plenty of problems with TARP but it isn't comparable to endemic welfare programs. TARP was/is a loan program, not a government giveaway. From 2008 to 2010, of the $240B given to foreign (ugh) and domestic banks, over $169B was repaid. Not only that, but there was a concerted successful effort to identify and curb the fraud involved. I have yet to ever see one single mother on welfare pay back a dime received and the Fed does very little to identify any kind of fraud, particularly the kind that comes from illegal immigration. A single teenage mother does not have to have work history in order to receive all kinds of welfare, government and private. Since FDR, the Democrat approach to fixing things is to foster dependence which in turn, creates a total nanny state mentality and long-term inability to become independent. Facts don't lie. Through Democrat initiated and supported programs, women are becoming more welfare dependent and less likely to get out of the poverty cycle. I'm not a Republican either and parts of their platform are a problem for me but for Democrats to hijack the topic and spin it as something different and using the kind of rhetoric they claimed to despise around the Gifford shooting, is hypocritical to say the least.
Holy crap, where did you come from? And with both guns a blazing I might add. Nice to see you around.
So what are you trying to say? Exactly? Cause I will tell you that probably 1 in 10 ever actually cash in on that "govt dependent program". When you couple that with the fact that most state schools offer no cost tuition to any resident who served the government is MAKING money on this deal. They get to harvest all the contributions, let it draw interest and sit back and wait for Johnny to forget he has a certain amount of time to file for his entitlement. Oh and lets not forget that it is earned with blood, sweat, tears, missed birthdays, anniversaries, holidays, nights in the sand, jungle, snow and who knows what else. Lets not forget sleeping with all sorts of critters that are worse than a $2 dollar whore. Did I mention the possibility of getting your ass shot off? I don't think it is dependent homie, I think it is deserved. I'd choose a different angle of attack if I were you.
No lie. Vball, I love your position but that's awful conservative for a Cali girl. I have friends who work offshore and they miss a lot of special occassions too. You knew all that when you signed up so pull yourself together and quit crying like a woman assaulted.
I was not aware that there were limitations now. I agree here. The government just needs to live within its means.
