Welfare, as you described it, came to an end in 1996, with the passage of comprehensive welfare reform, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act that, in effect, ended welfare as an entitlement program, and imposed requirements that recipients to begin working after two years of receiving benefits and placed a lifetime limit of five years on benefits. Some states have imposed stiffer restrictions and there are a few exceptions in the federal law so as to protect the health and welfare of children after the five year time limit.

As a result, the percentage of individuals receiving welfare (afdc/tanf) dropped from over 5% of the total population in 1995 to under 2% by 2006.....only rising again in the last few years because of the recession.

Using the Reagan "welfare Cadillac queens" and "junkies and baby factories" type anecdotes is dishonest and disingenuous...and years out of date.

I never got an answer to my post. Is there a difference between welfare, SS disability, and medicaid?

Yes.

Welfare generally refers to Aid to Families with Dependent Children (afdc) which was replaced by Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (tanf) with the 96 welfare reform.

SS disability and medicaid are entirely separate with different eligibility requirements and funding sources. So is SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) or food stamps.

Thanks, I can't speak for everyone but the generalizations that I make on the abuse of these systems, I tend to lump them all into the same category.

the truth is that no one is living it up on welfare. no one. welfare is a pitiful sum of money for anyone to live on, and though your assistance goes up with children, it's still paltry. The people you see who have no jobs but are driving the nice cars, etc. are more than likely participating in illegal activities

There are abuses in any large government program and probably greater abuse in corporate welfare programs like the DoAg federal crop subsidy program (just one example) where the agri-business giants know how to scam the system far better than a working single mom.

The problem is that it's not just AFDC or TANF that gets milked this way. Talk to my neighbors; these imbiciles will -brag- about the ways they scam Social Security/Disability ("back problems" that don't prevent them from lifting heavy loads, putting up several tonnes of hay every fall, or participating in lawn-mower races, closed head injuries that somehow just keep re-occurring every year, "accidental" injuries of various superficial kinds, etc), Medicare/Medicaid (claim injuries as before, treat the pain with Johnny Walker and Nyquil, sell the prescription 'meds), WIC (get monthly supplement, buy stuff, -resell- stuff at a profit* to friends and family, plow profits into more booze/drugs/toys), etc...to say nothing of the scams people will run on a Church or private Charity. To these people, scamming their way into more of -your- money is a -good- thing, something to boast about! And they do!

And while you're correct that AFDC doesn't actually work that way anymore, plenty of people still try to game the system that way because that's how it worked for the past several generations. One family on my street saved up $500.00 worth of their meth money and used it to pay a Mexican tree-trimmer to impregnate Grammaw; a 55yr-old harridan who looked like a 98yr-old pregnant Treblinka survivor, in order to get more welfare money. They were -most- displeased when they were informed that although the child would probably get SS/D (due to the likelihood of birth defects being borne to a 55yr-old meth addict with chronic malnourishment issues), no further AFDC would be forthcoming.

Yes, there are still plenty of welfare queens, junkies, and baby factories out there, I promise. I live next door to 'em.

BS. When you cram 5-10 people into one double-wide, and they're all drawing $1400+/mo from various State assistance programmes, that adds up QUICK, especially when you supplement -that- income by selling prescription meds, cooking methamphetamine, and various sorts of petty theft and fraud.




*Which, since they didn't pay for it anyway, means that "a profit" could be had by selling $8.00 ribeye steaks for $2.00 apiece. Lots of local morons do a brisk business this way, using WIC to buy up a truckload of expensive grub, which they then resell at a fraction of its' market value.

Okay, so the problem isn't with the welfare system; it's with crime. Maybe Colorado Springs shouldn't have cut the police budget.

Or maybe the problem -is- with the welfare system: a system which not only allows but encourages such behavior in the larcenous and the lazy. Remove the ability/incentive to finance their criminality with other people's money, and these individuals might have to try an honest living. As long as the system remains these people will see it as a cash cow (because that's exactly what it is) and continue to exploit it. Since this provides a ready-made plantation of votes for whomever promises and delivers the most "free" money and stuff, which changes depending upon who's in power, neither party is terribly interested in doing anything about this.

So the welfare system is a problem because of the minority of users who not only widely abuse drugs but also make and distribute them? Interesting. I wonder if you have the same warped view of businesspeople: they're all lying, cheating inside traders who prey on employees and consumers. Maybe the U.S. government should move toward a socialist if not communist state to ensure important businesses are doing what they should be doing. Maybe we should just jail them all: businesspeople and welfare recipients.

Pardon the hyperbole.

In my opinion, many of the problems in America would be solved by reallocating 10% of the military budget to education and public health care. That a welfare system exists is not a big problem.

What a weird turn of phrase. In my view of the world, people resort to risky behaviors like crime when they NEED finances, or when they see that the risk of it is worth the potential benefit.

I can hardly fathom a world in which there is inherent criminality that is enabled by public funding. That's so backwards, in terms of how I see the cause and effect of crime, I can't even really get my head around it.

The idea that programs that covers 2 to 5% of the population (a section that is among the least likely to vote, by the way) are the cause for the problems of the "system" is highly hyperbolic.

Especially when other classes have direct and indirect subsidies that far outstrip the cost of said welfare programs.

And where, exactly, did I confine my objections to welfare simply to thieves and scumbags like my neighbors? Thieves and scumbags inhabit penthouses too, you know, and I want them cut off the Gov't tit as well.

So you want both social and corporate welfare eliminated because of an abusive minority?

This is where definitions matter. What is the "welfare system?"

Are agricultural subsidies part of what you consider the "welfare system?"

Are military family benefits part of what you consider the "welfare system?"

Are differing tariffs that end up benefiting certain business over others part of what you consider the "welfare system?"

Are the sort of privileged status that courts and police confer on the wealthy due to their ability to influence politicians and hire good lawyers part of the "welfare system?"

Are the sections of the military budget that are used to fund foreign interventions that benefit specific American corporations part of the "welfare system?"

Are the sections of the state department used to strike favorable deals for specific American business part of the "welfare system?"


And this is not a merely academic question: we all want to do away with abuses of the system, but it isn't as easy as saying "let's end abuse." You'd have to either cut or alter programs, and Im curious where you draw the line at regarding state action.

i have to say i find this entire way of thinking about the redistribution of wealth to be bizarre.
it's a bit of received wisdom in some circles, but i can't help but see in it a kind of strange type of resentment that passes from one dominated fraction of a socio-economic class to another. classic reconstruction-period stuff. and even now after having heard and seen this nonsense recycled over and over as an aspect of the building of resentment conservative-style as a way to hold together an otherwise kinda disparate demographic, i'm still suprised each time i see it and even more each time i see it repeated.

this idea of it "feeding criminality" seems to me a particular far-right political thing which feeds into other discourses of "social parasitism" that have worked out real well when they've been transposed into policy.


in most countries with a social-democratic tradition, welfare was set up as a socio-political compromise. the idea was that the wealth capitalism generates owes itself to the social systems that enable it (i can't believe i have to explain this again)...so the holders of capital owed it to the system to maintain it, to buy solidarity.
the ethical argument was that capitalism was supposed to elevate this fiction they call "civilization" above the level of law of the social-darwinist jungle, and could do so pretty easily (assuming that 30% of your budget doesnt go into things like military procurement of course).

it's depressing to have to outline these arguments in 2009.

Yes. It's not the Gov't's job to use other people's money to artificially inflate the prices I can sell my beef and corn for.

No. They are a benefits package negotiated between an employer (DoD) and an employee (servicemember) for services rendered. Now, whether the military as it currently exists is a morally and constitutionally valid organisation, that's another debate.

Yes. It's not the Gov't's job to use other people's money to influence the market and gain favorable or unfavorable outcomes for different participants.

No, because this is de facto instead of de jure, a social fact rather than a political one. Again, the morality or practicability of such facts is for another debate.

Yes. It isn't the Gov't's job to use other people's money to start wars for the benefit of someone else's bank account.

Yes, see above.

the liberals use that for the gun control argument, why shouldn't it work both ways?

This parallel doesn't really make a lot of sense.

First of all, because there is already a lot more social control exercised over welfare recipients than gun owners.

Second of all, because I am not aware of any significant position within the gun control movement that favors the complete elimination of gun ownership. The strictest gun laws in the nation don't eliminate gun ownership, simply restrict the types of gun, who can have them, and where one can carry them.

It also assumes all things being equal—which they aren't.

it makes perfect sense when you look at how gun control developed over the last 50 years.

false. at least depending on where one lives. In Texas, it might be real easy to get a gun, but not NYC. Welfare in NYC or Chicago is alot easier than getting a gun.

VPC, LCAV, Brady Campaign, etc. All of these groups started out wanting the elimination of handguns for citizen ownership, unless you were military or law enforcement. Their public face may have changed, but their ultimate goal is banning private gun ownership. To think anything different is either completely naive or intellectual dishonesty.

no, THIS is false

BS. TANF requires not only registration, but showing of need, that people accept jobs, that single parents work at least a certain number of hours, and regulates a number of other factors like childcare options and so on. NYC requires a permit and registration, but no need to show need or any other restrictions to have a gun at home.



First of all that is false, at least regarding the Brady campaign.


Again, as i said: "I am not aware of any significant position within the gun control movement that favors the complete elimination of gun ownership."

If that is "intellectual dishonesty," prove it. Show me one significant group that openly advocates for the complete elimination of gun ownership. If that is based on nothing more on what you think they would do in the future depending on how things go blahblahblah, then it would be obvious who is being intellectually dishonest here.

do you know what the gun laws are in NYC or chicago? Do you know the steps it takes to acquire one in those two cities?

---------- Post added at 04:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:09 PM ----------

The Brady Campaign started out named Handgun Control, Inc. Their purpose was to ban civilian ownership of handguns. Their 'public position' has changed because of the publics position, but to think that their position is no longer about banning handgun possession, or gun possession in general is pure intellectual dishonesty. That position is evidenced by their stated briefs in heller v. DC and the upcoming Mcdonald v. Chicago case.

Intellectual dishonesty is quietly moving the goal posts by trying to use gun and handgun interchangeably.

And yes, Ive read the steps necessary to acquire handguns in those cities. Do you know what is required in order to get into and stay in TANF?

there is no difference in these two terms when it concerns the anti gun groups i've discussed.

no, I don't. But i'd be very interested to know them please.

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence : About

"Q. Is Brady a "gun ban" organization?

A. No. Brady believes that a safer America can be achieved without banning guns.

We believe that law-abiding citizens should be able to buy and keep firearms. And we believe there are sensible gun laws that we can and should insist upon when it comes to gun ownership.

First and foremost, we should try to keep dangerous weapons out of the wrong hands, including criminals and children.

Second, there are certain classes of weapons that should be out of bounds for private ownership. They include Saturday-night specials, which are used almost exclusively for crime, military-style assault weapons like Uzis and AK-47s, and .50-caliber sniper rifles, which serve no ordinary sporting purpose.

Third, we believe that those who do own guns ought to be held to the highest standards of safety. They should be well trained in the use of their weapons and they should be required to keep weapons secure, so that neither innocent children nor prohibited persons can get a hold of them."

All gun control groups and most enacted legislation in the US distinguish between gun and handgun.


Regarding TANF:

for new york
Federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant

lip service. it's bullshit. they are flat out lying.

Except that none of these groups ever proposed or advocated what you are claiming they do.

Wow I didn't know this thread was about gun control.

DK can you please add a signature which says "This thread is now about gun control" so when you post in a thread I know it is now about gun control.

if he's posting in the thread, it will eventually turn into taxes and/or guns

although guns and gun control do end up a common thread in my posts, looking at the bigger picture one would realize that i'm about ALL rights and freedoms, not just picking and choosing which ones are more important like most people.

So you're saying 'comprehensive welfare reform' still did not eliminate the abuses?

I'm speaking from my experience of daily interaction with 'abusers'. I could not care less about government-mental statistics or any other propaganda generated to impress the masses. As stated previous, my opinion has been formed through interaction with those dispensing and receiving benefits.

So the facts are propaganda and your anecdotal interactions are far more reflective of the truth ?

Sorry dude, that doesnt work for me.

Facts matter.

The vast majority of welfare recipients are now relatively short-termers who benefit from the social safety net and dont abuse the system.

Yes, I'm sure all the research conducted by universities is merely for pleasing the government and the masses.

Okay, disregarding that you don't except experience as fact.

According to The Budget for Fiscal Year 2008, Historical Tables, total outlays for Means Tested Entitlements in 2006 were $354.3 billion. This was 2.7% of GDP and

Includes Medicaid, food stamps, family support assistance (AFDC), supplemental security income (SSI), child nutrition programs, refundable portions of earned income tax credits (EITC and HITC) and child tax credit, welfare contingency fund, child care entitlement to States, temporary assistance to needy families, foster care and adoption assistance, State children's health insurance and veterans pensions.

(from Table 8.1, page 133)

The cost of these programs has increased from 0.8% of GDP in 1962 (before Medicaid) to 2.7% of GDP in 2006, or by 1.9% of GDP. If we exclude Medicaid, health care for children and veterans pensions it is 0.89 % of GDP, or $117 billion. (The numbers for the excluded items are found in Table 8.5, page 142). This represents approximately 7.5% of total non-Social Security receipts to the Federal Government. So, for every one of your tax dollars to the Federal Government, about 7.5 cents goes to these programs. I hate to use averages, but the average taxpayer had a tax rate of 12.45% in 2005 (the latest data available here), so if we multiply things out we see that about 0.93% of the average taxpayer's income went to non-medical "welfare". So, if you made $50,000 and paid $6,225.00 in Federal income tax, approximately $465.00 went to all of these programs x-healthcare and veterans pensions.


So how exactly has this 'reform' helped?

---------- Post added at 08:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:38 PM ----------

Funding for the studies has to come from somewhere. If you're findings contradict your benefactors interests do you get more funding?

Social Security and Medicare account for about 75% of entitlement spending and account for even a larger percent of the increase in the last 10 years, as a result of the first wave of baby boomers.

Until 2007 and the onset of the recession, spending on TAFN had decreased in every year since 1996.

Well considering a lot of university research is conducted for themselves or some other related organization, much of it wouldn't benefit from painting a rosy picture. And I'm guessing many universities are painfully aware of funding biases related to research, especially the research universities.

It's a huge game of 3 Card Monty. The statistics may say less money is going out in one area, and it is, but the total outlay continues to grow. The spending has just been increased in other programs being abused by the same recipients. Look around you, those you know who are consistently employed tend to remain employed. Those who aren't, do not.

I'm really not trying to be a Troll here and I appreciate all points of view. It's what makes this country great. I just firmly believe that we have been headed down an unrecoverable path for generations and without some real reform in government we are doomed.

From the 2010 Statistical Abstract of the US

1996 - 4.4 million families (12.3 million recipients) receiving TANF aid and declining every year after the welfare reform was implemented, to:
2007 - 1.7 million families (3.9 million recipients) receiving TANF aid

http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/10s0553.pdf

Facts are a stubborn thing.