The truth about welfare

[AthenaAwakened]

hat we call "welfare" today has its origins in the 1935 Social Security Act, which provided aid for states to give assistance to a number of classes of Americans, including the elderly, the blind, and the unemployed. The Act provided money for monthly payments to poor children where at least one parent was absent or unable to work. In practice, this meant that the vast majority of aid went to widows and single mothers. The program gradually expanded to all 50 states and in the early 1960s became known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).

Then in 1996, the Republican Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, which fundamentally altered the nature of welfare. The name of the program was changed to Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), with the accent on "temporary." The new program would have a five year lifetime limit on cash benefits and require that recipients be working or in a job-training program. Critically, it ended welfare as an "entitlement," meaning that states were no longer required to accept any applicant who met the program's qualifications. Instead, the money goes to states as a "block grant," with the state deciding how many people it will serve and how many it will turn away. The number of people on the rolls immediately began to decline. In 1996, according to the census, there were 4.4 million families receiving welfare; in 2008, it was only 1.6 million.

And when the Great Recession hit in 2008, the states began turning away people in droves; even as millions of Americans fell into poverty, the welfare rolls didn't increase, meaning that a smaller and smaller portion of America's poor families are getting cash assistance from the government.

For Republicans, this is a feature, not a bug; they hope to convert food stamps and Medicaid to block grants as well.

Because TANF is a federal/state program and each state sets its own eligibility standards, benefits vary widely. As you might expect, benefits in Southern states run by Republicans are far more meager than those in Northern and Western states where Democrats govern. In 2011, benefits ranged from a low of $170 a month for a single-parent family of three in Mississippi to a high of $753 for the same family living in New York. TANF spending was set at $16.5 billion per year in the 1996 bill, where it has remained—without any adjustment for inflation—ever since.

http://prospect.org/article/truth-about-welfare

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Which has nothing to do with my point that out welfare system rewards decisions that are bad in the long term.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Which has nothing to do with my point that out welfare system rewards decisions that are bad in the long term.

What long term? What rewards? Be specific.

 

[RVonse]

hat we call "welfare" today has its origins in the 1935 Social Security Act, which provided aid for states to give assistance to a number of classes of Americans, including the elderly, the blind, and the unemployed. The Act provided money for monthly payments to poor children where at least one parent was absent or unable to work. In practice, this meant that the vast majority of aid went to widows and single mothers. The program gradually expanded to all 50 states and in the early 1960s became known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).

Then in 1996, the Republican Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, which fundamentally altered the nature of welfare. The name of the program was changed to Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), with the accent on "temporary." The new program would have a five year lifetime limit on cash benefits and require that recipients be working or in a job-training program. Critically, it ended welfare as an "entitlement," meaning that states were no longer required to accept any applicant who met the program's qualifications. Instead, the money goes to states as a "block grant," with the state deciding how many people it will serve and how many it will turn away. The number of people on the rolls immediately began to decline. In 1996, according to the census, there were 4.4 million families receiving welfare; in 2008, it was only 1.6 million.

And when the Great Recession hit in 2008, the states began turning away people in droves; even as millions of Americans fell into poverty, the welfare rolls didn't increase, meaning that a smaller and smaller portion of America's poor families are getting cash assistance from the government.

For Republicans, this is a feature, not a bug; they hope to convert food stamps and Medicaid to block grants as well.

Because TANF is a federal/state program and each state sets its own eligibility standards, benefits vary widely. As you might expect, benefits in Southern states run by Republicans are far more meager than those in Northern and Western states where Democrats govern. In 2011, benefits ranged from a low of $170 a month for a single-parent family of three in Mississippi to a high of $753 for the same family living in New York. TANF spending was set at $16.5 billion per year in the 1996 bill, where it has remained—without any adjustment for inflation—ever since.

View attachment 8574

http://prospect.org/article/truth-about-welfare

The graph does not look good to me either. But where will this money to be paid out come from? The graph you show looks very similar to the graph you will see if you view what has happened to real middle class wages over the same time frame. And middle class people pay almost all the taxes that are used to provide this support.

If the funding for this could come from wars we don't need, I would be much more in favor of it. Or better yet, fund it from a banksters tax on speculation.

Do you think middle class people should have to pay even more for charity when their own prosperity has fallen so much? The money you transfer to welfare has to come from somewhere.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

http://prospect.org/article/truth-about-welfare

The graph does not look good to me either. But where will this money to be paid out come from? The graph you show looks very similar to the graph you will see if you view what has happened to real middle class wages over the same time frame. And middle class people pay almost all the taxes that are used to provide this support.

If the funding for this could come from wars we don't need, I would be much more in favor of it. Or better yet, fund it from a banksters tax on speculation.

Do you think middle class people should have to pay even more for charity when their own prosperity has fallen so much? The money you transfer to welfare has to come from somewhere.

Do you think poor people, WHO ARE WORKING BTW, should also be hungry and homeless? You see, if you think that's ok, there is no need for further discussion. If you don't, then we can figure out how pay for it, the same way we some how find ways to pay for war, big business subsidies and bank bailouts. Have we become so selfish and heartless a people that we can only find ways to hurt each other, but helping each other just cost too much?

And here is another question about the middle class, should the middle class be so strapped for cash, they can't afford to help the poor?

That doesn't sound middle class to me, that sounds the one or two paychecks away from being a member of poor. Maybe the middle class should be more worried about that

 

[RVonse]

The graph does not look good to me either. But where will this money to be paid out come from? The graph you show looks very similar to the graph you will see if you view what has happened to real middle class wages over the same time frame. And middle class people pay almost all the taxes that are used to provide this support.

If the funding for this could come from wars we don't need, I would be much more in favor of it. Or better yet, fund it from a banksters tax on speculation.

Do you think middle class people should have to pay even more for charity when their own prosperity has fallen so much? The money you transfer to welfare has to come from somewhere.

Do you think poor people, WHO ARE WORKING BTW, should also be hungry and homeless? You see, if you think that's ok, there is no need for further discussion. If you don't, then we can figure out how pay for it, the same way we some how find ways to pay for war, big business subsidies and bank bailouts. Have we become so selfish and heartless a people that we can only find ways to hurt each other, but helping each other just cost too much?

And here is another question about the middle class, should the middle class be so strapped for cash, they can't afford to help the poor?

That doesn't sound middle class to me, that sounds the one or two paychecks away from being a member of poor. Maybe the middle class should be more worried about that

I don't disagree with any of this.

Tell me how to change the way things are and I'll be on board.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Which has nothing to do with my point that out welfare system rewards decisions that are bad in the long term.

What long term? What rewards? Be specific.

The big example is having babies.

 

[bilby]

What long term? What rewards? Be specific.

The big example is having babies.

You can count the number of people who decide to have a baby because of the welfare payments it will attract, on the fingers of one foot.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

What long term? What rewards? Be specific.

The big example is having babies.

What does that mean? Women have babies? We know that. Explain what you mean.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The big example is having babies.

What does that mean? Women have babies? We know that. Explain.

His argument is that women have babies to get more money. The number that do is somewhere in between what both sides believe.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

What does that mean? Women have babies? We know that. Explain.

His argument is that women have babies to get more money. The number that do is somewhere in between what both sides believe.

What is that number?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

10 things to know about TANF

1) There is no cash entitlement program for people living in poverty in the U.S. States (including Washington, D.C.), the tribes and the territories have wide discretion, so there are more than fifty different TANF systems in the country.

2) Most people in poverty do not receive cash assistance. In 1996, for every 100 families with children in poverty, there were 68 families who accessed cash assistance. In 2011, for every 100 families with children in poverty, 27 accessed cash assistance.

3) Over the last 16 years, the number of people receiving TANF cash assistance has declined by 60 percent, even as poverty and deep poverty — people living below half the poverty line — have increased.
4) TANF is reaching fewer children. In 1995, AFDC kept over 2.2 million poor children — over 62 percent of all poor children — out of deep poverty. In 2005, TANF lifted just 21 percent of children who would otherwise be in deep poverty, or just 650,000 kids.

5) The cash benefit is less than 50 percent of the poverty line in every state— so less than $9,000 for a family of three — and less than 30 percent of the poverty line in most states, or less than $5,500 annually for a family of three.

6) The TANF block grant has been frozen since 1996 so its value in real terms has declined by over 30 percent. Congress also recently failed to fund the Supplemental Grants for 17 poorer states which had received them since 1996, reducing the overall funding of these high poverty states by as much as 10 percent.

7) The “work participation rate” is a failed measure that stifles effective career pathways. The federal government rewards or penalizes states based on whether TANF recipients are doing “countable activities,” with no assessment as to whether those activities lead to employment entry, job retention, advancement or poverty reduction. So sweeping a county garage might be an approved activity, while post-secondary education leading to a wage that supports a family may not be permitted at all, or only for a limited number of recipients.

8) The work participation rate discourages states from serving the most “needy” families that have multiple barriers to employment — such as physical or mental health limitations, a child with a health problem or an experience with domestic violence — even though these are the people with the most to gain from employment assistance. The priority is serving people who are able to meet the work requirements with little or no assistance.

9) The TANF Emergency Fund placed more than 260,000 low-income adults and youth in paid jobs at the height of the recession. Thirty-seven states participated in this public-private partnership, and it earned bipartisan support from governors. But Congress allowed it to expire in September 2010.

10) A weak TANF has contributed to a rise in deep poverty. The number of people living in deep poverty has risen from 12.6 million in 2000 to 20.4 million people today. This includes over 15 million women and children — 9.8 percent of all children.

Oh yeah, public assistance is a real gravy train.

You guys do know that what is called welfare is NOT a real life version of the 1970s movie CLAUDINE?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

What does that mean? Women have babies? We know that. Explain.

His argument is that women have babies to get more money. The number that do is somewhere in between what both sides believe.

So more than zero, less than "all of them." Not very helpful, but it's a start.

There is a concept in political discourse in which the people having the discussion MASSIVELY over-estimate how important a government policy or program is to the private/personal lives of individuals who are not themselves government employees. It needs to be remembered that most people's relationship with the government is an EXTREMELY distant one; Americans don't understand how their government works, what it does, or how it does it. Their very few encounters with their government involve police officers or bureaucrats or form letters generated by an agency and delivered by a person whose name they barely know.

So assuming that the availability of welfare benefits is a major factor in a decision like HAVING A BABY assumes something about the thinking process of the average American that does not bear close scrutiny: namely, that government policies and their implications are as important, if not more so, than what's going on in their day-to-day lives. Even if you could make this claim of the middle class and the wealthy, poor people tend to be far more apolitical and apathetic to those policies and are in NO WAY familiar enough with them to include them in some sort of deliberate family planning scheme.

tl;dr: A person who is smart enough and knowledgeable enough to deliberately have a child in order to receive additional welfare benefits is a person who is smart enough not to need them in the first place.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The big example is having babies.

What does that mean? Women have babies? We know that. Explain what you mean.

You're a teenage girl, unhappy at home. Have a baby and you get someone to love and a government check.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

What does that mean? Women have babies? We know that. Explain what you mean.

You're a teenage girl, unhappy at home. Have a baby and you get someone to love and a government check.

Most girls who get pregnant are not looking for a check or a baby to love them, they trying to get some boy to love them who just told them that Mountain Dew is a spermicide.

Girls get pregnant not because they plan, but because they don't plan.

DUH!!!!!

 

[Rhea]

Question: When the states got "Block Grants" of money to help the needy, and then reduced how many needy they helped and reduced the dollar amount to those they did help, what happened to the rest of the money the states had received for the purpose of helping the needy?

 

[Derec]

10 things to know about TANF

Oh yeah, public assistance is a real gravy train.

You are pretending that TANF is the only form of public assistance. However there is:
- tax deductions that go up based on number of children you have. This benefit is linear, but marginal cost of raising additional children is not, so that it encourages having more children.
- refundable tax credits like so-called Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax credit. EITC has very low amounts and limits for singles, but they increase substantially as you add children. For example, a single person making mere $15k would not be eligible for any EITC but a single mother of 3 earning the same would get over $6k in EITC. That credit (as well as the separate child tax credit) is "refundable" meaning that if tax liability is less than amount of credits, she gets the money anyway, which gives her an effective negative tax rate. In this case, the single mother of 3 would have $0 federal tax liability, so just through EITC she would have effective -41% tax rate just due to EITC. Child tax credit would add $3,000 to her total take, making her effective tax rate -61%! That is tantamount to cash assistance even if it is not TANF.
- food stamps
- housing assistance, section 8 etc.

You guys do know that what is called welfare is NOT a real life version of the 1970s movie CLAUDINE?

Not familiar with that movie. What is it about? A welfare queen?

 

[Derec]

Most girls who get pregnant are not looking for a check or a baby to love them,

You say most, which implies that some, possibly a large minority, do.

they trying to get some boy to love them who just told them that Mountain Dew is a spermicide.

They trying? Seriously?
And for example I would never tell a girl the Mountain Dew story, but these girls never wanted to have sex with me, preferring bad boys who lie to them. So they are to blame for making bad choices in sex partners.

Girls get pregnant not because they plan, but because they don't plan.

Why should I have to subsidize their lack of planning?

 

[Derec]

What does that mean? Women have babies? We know that. Explain what you mean.

Tax deductions, EITC (refundable), child tax credit (refundable), food stamps, housing assistance, all either only become available when you have children or increase substantially when you have children and keep increasing as you push out more of them. Government policies encourage poor people to have too many children.

 

[laughing dog]

What does that mean? Women have babies? We know that. Explain what you mean.

Tax deductions, EITC (refundable), child tax credit (refundable), food stamps, housing assistance, all either only become available when you have children or increase substantially when you have children and keep increasing as you push out more of them. Government policies encourage poor people to have too many children.

Do you have any disinterested evidence to support your hypothesis that these gov't programs induce some people to get pregnant and give birth? And do you have any actual research that shows that a woman with a child and receiving gov't assistance is induced to have more children by that assistance?

I ask those questions because anyone with children knows how much time and effort and expense it takes to care for children. These programs do not come close to adequately covering all of those costs.