Let's talk about POOR U.S. CITIZENS no one else is this election year!

[MuadDib]

Prior to LBJ's Great Society, the poverty rate was about 19%. Since we started the War on Poverty, we've thrown about $15 trillion into it which is, coincidentally, roughly equivalent to our current national debt. Things that make you go Hmmmm...

For all that money spent over the last 50 years, the poverty rate still hovers slightly above 15%. $15 trillion dollars only improved it by about 3.5%.

No program in American history has ever done more to destroy the stability of poor families, particularly poor minority families, than Welfare. That's why you have so many baby daddies and baby mommas running around out there today. They don't have to take responsibilty for their behavior or actions. They expect the government, i.e. the taxpayers, to take that responsibility for them.

I am with you on the point of taking personal responsibility.

I would like to see a link to that $15 TRILLION spent on poverty over the last 50 years.

You just can't drop a number that size without backing it up.

LINK

 

[flacaltenn]

The Democrats don't want to help them, they want them to stay put, they need their vote. The Republicans want to help them stand on their own.

Let's talk about POOR U.S. CITIZENS no one else is this election year!

Wrong. Democrats want to help them.

Republicans want to:

Suppress their vote No they want legal US Citizens to vote so their vote matters

Let them starve Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach him to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime. Keeping someone on the government dole doesn't help them, it makes them slaves for their vote.

Make sure they can never get an education Let's get education back to where it was before so every Johnny, Susie, Dick and Jane earn their grades. They aren't given passing grades to "keep from hurting their feelings". All the money in the world can't make someone WANT to learn.

Let them die No this is ACA, if they're over 50 and need a kidney transplant they'll have to weigh the benefits of "letting them get it" .

Grind them down into the dirt Not sure what you mean by this but Dems want a chosen few to stay "below poverty level, dirt poor" so they can "give them free stuff" for their vote.

Not something that can be denied.

You have been watching too much Fox News.

Taxpayers want value for every dollar paid.

Believe it or not Democrats know the value of a dollar just like Republicans!

Strange as it may seem to a OWS sympathizer, dollars have very little to do with helping a little girl that lives with a crack-head mom... The OWS is fixated on money as badly as they accuse their political rivals of being. Find TRUE COMPASSION and you'll see the solutions don't start as political fixes.. Folks who fixate on programs and dollars from Wash don't know JACK about helping the needy..

 

[rdean]

Let's talk about POOR U.S. CITIZENS no one else is this election year!

Wrong. Democrats want to help them.

Republicans want to:

Suppress their vote

Let them starve

Make sure they can never get an education

Let them die

Grind them down into the dirt

Not something that can be denied.

I'm not a Republican, I'm an Independent, but I'll weigh in on this.

How about if they:

Get off their asses.

Get a job.

Be productive.

Be self sufficient.

Stop being a leech looking for a handout.

Get off of the streets.

Get off of the drugs.

Get off of the booze.

Stay in school.

Stop getting knocked up and making babies that they can't and don't want to support?

People already had jobs. Republicans, working with the Chamber of Commerce helped move their jobs to China. It was the beginning of the recession and part of the mess Republicans handed to Obama. Obama wants to educate those who lost their jobs so we can compete. Republicans don't want that either. True story. Funny you say "stay in school" when Republicans are working to defund education. Oops.

 

[MuadDib]

Let's talk about POOR U.S. CITIZENS no one else is this election year!

Wrong. Democrats want to help them.

Republicans want to:

Suppress their vote

Let them starve

Make sure they can never get an education

Let them die

Grind them down into the dirt

Not something that can be denied.

I'm not a Republican, I'm an Independent, but I'll weigh in on this.

How about if they:

Get off their asses.

Get a job.

Be productive.

Be self sufficient.

Stop being a leech looking for a handout.

Get off of the streets.

Get off of the drugs.

Get off of the booze.

Stay in school.

Stop getting knocked up and making babies that they can't and don't want to support?

People already had jobs. Republicans, working with the Chamber of Commerce helped move their jobs to China. It was the beginning of the recession and part of the mess Republicans handed to Obama. Obama wants to educate those who lost their jobs so we can compete. Republicans don't want that either. True story. Funny you say "stay in school" when Republicans are working to defund education. Oops.

Bullshit! The Dems have been putting miners and workers in fossil fuels out of jobs for years. Both parties had a hand in NAFTA: Bush1 negotiated it and Clinton signed it. Cut a bunch of lazy asses off of welfare, lock down the border, and let Americans pick tomatos for a living. It's honest work and it might give them some incentive to improve themselves.

You can't blame education on the Republicans either. Those teachers' unions that the Dems love so much have done a lot to screw the system by making it hard, if not impossible, to fire bad teachers.

Yeah, get off of the streets and stay in school. As flawed as the education system in America is, an education is still the ticket out of poverty.

 

[gallantwarrior]

How do you turn people into productive citizens so they aren't liabilities anymore? Do we expect anything of those people when it comes to turning their lives around?

OWS are a good example of why we have a large class of dependents. They are good about wanting everything and whining to get it, but they do little else to help themselves.

Apparently, the whining wasn't enough so they are pooping everywhere in hopes of getting sympathy. Can't imagine why it's not working.

How nice, someone actually on topic!

Just because I am lean to the left does not mean I want anything less than a dollar's worth of effort for every tax dollar paid. Excluding verified disabled people, everyone who gets a check, should work, even if it is picking up trash in a park all day.

Just because I believe in government lending CITIZENS a helping hand, like unemployment, SNAP, or health care in tough times, does not mean I endorse freeloading.
Anyone gets a check, they must do some kind of work. This to me is non-negotiable.

I seriously doubt you are a true liberal. Probably more like most Americans, a Fiscal Conservative and a Social Liberal. True liberals believe the government should give them free food, free housing, free phones and free health care. No way in heck do they expect to work for it when they are supposed to get it for free.

Free costs the people that pay Federal Income taxes.

But wait...don't they have the right to have housing, food, phones, computers, cars, health care for free? How dare we conservatives deny them their basic human rights?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Catalist, in order to be taken seriously it is imperative that you address the observations made in my post and in usmcstinger's

Also, you need to be aware that it was the Republican-controlled Congress that initiated and passed the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 for Clinton to sign. Conservatives do care about the poor and have been addressing their plight for decades.

Liberty and self-reliance, Catalist, have always been the first and best solutions. Post, 20th-Century entrenched poverty is nothing more than the result of squandered governmental largesse, passed out by leftist: not to solve a problem but to retain a dependent voting block of moochers. I say again: you have been deceived.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

This Week in Poverty: Obama

No one, neither party, wants to talk about poor U. S. CITIZENS, yet we send bombers to Libya, troops to Afghanistan, and food to every international disaster. Why don't we take care of our own poor first?

Give them education, training, and opportunity. Prepare them for a world where we all make our own breaks. We should not allow a single immigrant into the United States until all of our CITIZENS have been given a REAL opportunity to improve themselves, (that is opportunity, not free lunch), We need to take care of our own first! Because when we do, we can tax them too!

I happen to be a liberal Democrat, but that is not the point. Neither party is addressing this issue. We need to turn our citizens who are liabilities into assets. This is not a political idea, this is an American concept. If we get everyone paying, everyone pays less! The only ones who should not have to work are the totally disabled. This is not a partisan concept, this is an American concept!

it”


Bill Clinton:
"When I signed the Welfare Reform Act in 1996, requiring able-bodied people who could work to do so, there was legitimate concern that there would not be jobs available for them because they tended to be under-educated and to have less experience, and tha when the economy slowed down, as it inevitably would, they would be the first laid off. While there have been some problems, welfare reform has been largely successful. The welfare rolls have dropped nearly 60%, more than 7 million people, by the time I left office, and have continued to drop since. In 2000, the percentage of Americans on welfare reached its lowest point in four decades. During the economic downturn of 2001, many of those who came off the welfare rolls were able to stay in the workforce in part due to policies designed to help them succeed",
Bill Clinton on Welfare & Poverty

In addition, Census Bureau data show that between 1993 and 2000, the percentage of low-income, single mothers with a job grew from 58 percent to nearly 75 percent, an increase of almost 30 percent.Welfare Reform in the United States Requires Welfare Recipients to Go to Work - 23k

In 1997 Obama opposed an Illinois welfare-reform bill, proposed by Republican senator Dave Syverson, which sought to move as many people as possible off the state welfare rolls and into paying jobs.
Obama's Voting Record and Policy Positions Prior to His Election As President - Discover the Networks


Despite its success, or perhaps because of it, President Obama and his allies are doing all they can to destroy welfare reform. Mr. Obama’s $862 billion stimulus package last February essentially abolished welfare reform by subsidizing the expansion of welfare rolls. The federal government now pays states 80 percent of the cost for each new family they add to their welfare rolls, a move that eliminates states’ incentive to push welfare recipients into the job force.
BAUER: Ending welfare reform - Washington Times

Partly as a consequence of the infusion of federal welfare funds, welfare rolls increased in 2009 for the first time since PRWORA was enacted, growing 5 percent as 200,000 more
Americans were added.
Welfare Reform Essays and Articles at eNotes

Why does this administration want to put more people on Welfare?

You make me yearn for George W. Bush. If his presidency had been challenged to solve the problems of the poor, he would have read your post and said, "Make it work," and walked off.

You're response is nonsensical. Welfare reform did work to advance the plight of the poor. Obviously. But I'm not sure I understand what your point is.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

This Week in Poverty: Obama

No one, neither party, wants to talk about poor U. S. CITIZENS, yet we send bombers to Libya, troops to Afghanistan, and food to every international disaster. Why don't we take care of our own poor first?

Give them education, training, and opportunity. Prepare them for a world where we all make our own breaks. We should not allow a single immigrant into the United States until all of our CITIZENS have been given a REAL opportunity to improve themselves, (that is opportunity, not free lunch), We need to take care of our own first! Because when we do, we can tax them too!

I happen to be a liberal Democrat, but that is not the point. Neither party is addressing this issue. We need to turn our citizens who are liabilities into assets. This is not a political idea, this is an American concept. If we get everyone paying, everyone pays less! The only ones who should not have to work are the totally disabled. This is not a partisan concept, this is an American concept!

it”


Bill Clinton:
"When I signed the Welfare Reform Act in 1996, requiring able-bodied people who could work to do so, there was legitimate concern that there would not be jobs available for them because they tended to be under-educated and to have less experience, and tha when the economy slowed down, as it inevitably would, they would be the first laid off. While there have been some problems, welfare reform has been largely successful. The welfare rolls have dropped nearly 60%, more than 7 million people, by the time I left office, and have continued to drop since. In 2000, the percentage of Americans on welfare reached its lowest point in four decades. During the economic downturn of 2001, many of those who came off the welfare rolls were able to stay in the workforce in part due to policies designed to help them succeed",
Bill Clinton on Welfare & Poverty

In addition, Census Bureau data show that between 1993 and 2000, the percentage of low-income, single mothers with a job grew from 58 percent to nearly 75 percent, an increase of almost 30 percent.Welfare Reform in the United States Requires Welfare Recipients to Go to Work - 23k

In 1997 Obama opposed an Illinois welfare-reform bill, proposed by Republican senator Dave Syverson, which sought to move as many people as possible off the state welfare rolls and into paying jobs.
Obama's Voting Record and Policy Positions Prior to His Election As President - Discover the Networks


Despite its success, or perhaps because of it, President Obama and his allies are doing all they can to destroy welfare reform. Mr. Obama’s $862 billion stimulus package last February essentially abolished welfare reform by subsidizing the expansion of welfare rolls. The federal government now pays states 80 percent of the cost for each new family they add to their welfare rolls, a move that eliminates states’ incentive to push welfare recipients into the job force.
BAUER: Ending welfare reform - Washington Times

Partly as a consequence of the infusion of federal welfare funds, welfare rolls increased in 2009 for the first time since PRWORA was enacted, growing 5 percent as 200,000 more
Americans were added.
Welfare Reform Essays and Articles at eNotes

Why does this administration want to put more people on Welfare?

More and more folks are beginning to understand what those of us who have been around understood from the beginning: Obama's hope and change was always about the hope of a mooching voting block and a change back to failed policies of the past. They also understand now that Obama never intended to cut the deficit at all, let alone by half by the end of his first term. LOL!

Obama is an utter disaster and a pathological liar.

 

[California Girl]

By the way, I think Mitt Romney has missed an important opportunity to appeal to middle class voters here. As members of the middle class slip into the low income category, Romney could have come up with alternatives not only to help the middle class, but help the poor build lives.

Not only would this have been good for the economy, and Romney's election chances, it would have been a chance to do something for someone beside the 1%. Everyone is tired of hearing about the 1% and their fictional problems.

I am sorry, but I don't see Romney worrying about me. When guys like me start turning to OWS and away from the Democratic Party, American has a problem. And, what is that you ask? Wall Street owns the Republicans, and rents the Democrats. Neither gives a damn about me. In 2009 and 2010 Democrats had the White House and Congress. We had the biggest financial crisis in history. No hearings were held, and no one went to jail.

The Tea Party has been obstructionist, and has accomplished nothing that helps the middle class. Nothing is getting done in Washington, and Americans blame the Tea Party. I predict this will be their last election. Out as fast as they came in. OWS says vote incumbents out, and so far, I agree! Americans are pissed and don't like anyone, but they are watching OWS.

Romney has addressed the middle class. You are clearly a ranting twit who is selective about what you 'hear' from politicians.

Try using your brain instead of getting your talking points from the MSM.

 

[Katzndogz]

We have the richest 'poor' in the world.

That's not the point. The point is, the poor are quite poor compared to the wealthy whom they envy.

The uber-wealthy you refer to as being envied make up such a small percentage of our population.

And don't you think "envy" is too weak of a word?
When one envies something they really desire, they do what's needed to attain it.

I would use the word 'jealous'.

The opportunities are the same.
How one chooses to utilize them makes all the difference.

Before Rderp jumps and calls me callous and uncaring; I realize this probably reads that way.

I have empathy for our poor. I've been there, I still have family that are.

A lot of us are about 2 paychecks away from losing it all.

I just don't see the point in begrudging someone else's good choices/fortune.

You are right. The correct word is jealous.

I have been extremely poor and worked and sacrificed not to be poor. When confronted with the jealous, I can usually muster up contempt.

 

[The T]

By the way, I think Mitt Romney has missed an important opportunity to appeal to middle class voters here. As members of the middle class slip into the low income category, Romney could have come up with alternatives not only to help the middle class, but help the poor build lives.

Not only would this have been good for the economy, and Romney's election chances, it would have been a chance to do something for someone beside the 1%. Everyone is tired of hearing about the 1% and their fictional problems.

I am sorry, but I don't see Romney worrying about me. When guys like me start turning to OWS and away from the Democratic Party, American has a problem. And, what is that you ask? Wall Street owns the Republicans, and rents the Democrats. Neither gives a damn about me. In 2009 and 2010 Democrats had the White House and Congress. We had the biggest financial crisis in history. No hearings were held, and no one went to jail.

The Tea Party has been obstructionist, and has accomplished nothing that helps the middle class. Nothing is getting done in Washington, and Americans blame the Tea Party. I predict this will be their last election. Out as fast as they came in. OWS says vote incumbents out, and so far, I agree! Americans are pissed and don't like anyone, but they are watching OWS.

Romney has addressed the middle class. You are clearly a ranting twit who is selective about what you 'hear' from politicians.

Try using your brain instead of getting your talking points from the MSM.

Poster 'Catalist' knows squat of First Principles. Good for you for addressing his err.

 

[The T]

That's not the point. The point is, the poor are quite poor compared to the wealthy whom they envy.

The uber-wealthy you refer to as being envied make up such a small percentage of our population.

And don't you think "envy" is too weak of a word?
When one envies something they really desire, they do what's needed to attain it.

I would use the word 'jealous'.

The opportunities are the same.
How one chooses to utilize them makes all the difference.

Before Rderp jumps and calls me callous and uncaring; I realize this probably reads that way.

I have empathy for our poor. I've been there, I still have family that are.

A lot of us are about 2 paychecks away from losing it all.

I just don't see the point in begrudging someone else's good choices/fortune.

You are right. The correct word is jealous.

I have been extremely poor and worked and sacrificed not to be poor. When confronted with the jealous, I can usually muster up contempt.

And jealousy does breed contempt. Best way to take that energy is to turn it around to a positive to be an example of why they are wrong and YOU are willing to prove them wrong by your hard work. Blaze a trail compadre!

 

[Catalist]

The OP here is the perfect example of why I believe most "bleeding heart liberals" are clinically afflicted with co-dependency.. The concept that the power to fix the "poor" is just a check away.. That the little girl with the crack-head mom is gonna get something from the govt to guarantee her a good life.

The leftist misconception is that by "caring" we validate our inclusion in society.. And those that don't want to redistribute mere money are "selfish".. Once you actually TRY to fix someone's problem with a program or a check -- you learn how selfish and stupid that actually is..

The most effective move is "one on one" time. Not something that Washington or your state capitol excels at. And you'll find yourself being dragged lower than you can stand -- if you attempt to help someone who is NOT READY to admit to problems.

That's the co-dependent part. You find yourself searching the gutters at 3 in the morning for the one you're trying to help and discover that it makes you feel important. But it's NOT effective, or wise..
When you look FIRST to politics to help these people --- you MUST be a progressive. A philosophy with a solid track record of forced sterilizations, lost privacy rights, and deep disrespect for the integrity of those they are trying to help....

I have not been here that long, but I am really getting a kick out of posters who analyze my politics right off the bat. This thread is a litmus test, and no one is doing well in my opinion as OP. I do not need your analysis of my politics, I can provide that myself if needed. My views on economics and immigration are conservative. On the liberal side I believe government should provide a temporary safety net for our CITIZENS. That makes me a conservative, liberal, Democrat, Republican, and basically now independent.

And, these arguments in here that our poor are not as poor as the poor in other nations are simply posters out of touch. Makes me want to force them into homeless shelters for a couple months and see how their politics work out. Experience is the best teacher!

We have about 300,000,000 very different people in this country. Other than the disabled, everyone should be productive. Those who are not should be "reeducated" with tough love. Poor people are a liability, we need to turn them into productive people, because one way or another American taxpayers are going to pay the freight.

This is not a question of liberalism, charity, or compassion. It is a question of coming up with solutions that keeps my money in my wallet, (there I go sounding like a Republican, or is it an "American?").

Both political parties should be ashamed of their lack of solutions in dealing with costly and unproductive attitudes toward the poor. This isn't charity, this is return on investment. I don't think flacaltenn would know a fiscal conservative if he saw one. "It takes money to make money!" And, flacaltenn better realize that independents like me will select the next president, so you might as well start kissing my ass right now! In the past I voted Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, and right now I am undecided, but I do not like being treated rudely by the ignorant!

Put Green Party candidate Rosanne Barr in the White House it would serve you all right!​

 

[Catalist]

By the way, I think Mitt Romney has missed an important opportunity to appeal to middle class voters here. As members of the middle class slip into the low income category, Romney could have come up with alternatives not only to help the middle class, but help the poor build lives.

Not only would this have been good for the economy, and Romney's election chances, it would have been a chance to do something for someone beside the 1%. Everyone is tired of hearing about the 1% and their fictional problems.

I am sorry, but I don't see Romney worrying about me. When guys like me start turning to OWS and away from the Democratic Party, American has a problem. And, what is that you ask? Wall Street owns the Republicans, and rents the Democrats. Neither gives a damn about me. In 2009 and 2010 Democrats had the White House and Congress. We had the biggest financial crisis in history. No hearings were held, and no one went to jail.

The Tea Party has been obstructionist, and has accomplished nothing that helps the middle class. Nothing is getting done in Washington, and Americans blame the Tea Party. I predict this will be their last election. Out as fast as they came in. OWS says vote incumbents out, and so far, I agree! Americans are pissed and don't like anyone, but they are watching OWS.

Romney has addressed the middle class. You are clearly a ranting twit who is selective about what you 'hear' from politicians.

Try using your brain instead of getting your talking points from the MSM.

Poster 'Catalist' knows squat of First Principles. Good for you for addressing his err.

You really are as out of touch with reality as I was warned. Trust me the American people are more interested in a secure, living wage, pay check than your ideology or your "First Principles." If it was called "Scientology" they would vote for it!

 

[hortysir]

By the way, I think Mitt Romney has missed an important opportunity to appeal to middle class voters here. As members of the middle class slip into the low income category, Romney could have come up with alternatives not only to help the middle class, but help the poor build lives.

Not only would this have been good for the economy, and Romney's election chances, it would have been a chance to do something for someone beside the 1%. Everyone is tired of hearing about the 1% and their fictional problems.

I am sorry, but I don't see Romney worrying about me. When guys like me start turning to OWS and away from the Democratic Party, American has a problem. And, what is that you ask? Wall Street owns the Republicans, and rents the Democrats. Neither gives a damn about me. In 2009 and 2010 Democrats had the White House and Congress. We had the biggest financial crisis in history. No hearings were held, and no one went to jail.

The Tea Party has been obstructionist, and has accomplished nothing that helps the middle class. Nothing is getting done in Washington, and Americans blame the Tea Party. I predict this will be their last election. Out as fast as they came in. OWS says vote incumbents out, and so far, I agree! Americans are pissed and don't like anyone, but they are watching OWS.

TEA Party-backed candidates took over the House.

Now should we take a look at what bills the House have passed that hit a stone wall?

 

[MuadDib]

Catalist, in order to be taken seriously it is imperative that you address the observations made in my post and in usmcstinger's

Also, you need to be aware that it was the Republican-controlled Congress that initiated and passed the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 for Clinton to sign. Conservatives do care about the poor and have been addressing their plight for decades.

Liberty and self-reliance, Catalist, have always been the first and best solutions. Post, 20th-Century entrenched poverty is nothing more than the result of squandered governmental largesse, passed out by leftist: not to solve a problem but to retain a dependent voting block of moochers. I say again: you have been deceived.

Quite correct.

Some today try to claim that the Founders believed in either one extreme or the other: either all out welfare or no welfare at all.

The fact is that the Founders believed in very limited welfare. Above all, they believed in strong families where parents took care of their children and then later in life, the children would take care of their parents in their old age. Families would take care of their own. In the rare cases where an individual had no one to care for them, only then would the state step in with some very limited assistance.

They would be frankly appalled at the levels of welfare and entitlements that we have today.

One of the many problems with the progressive state is that it eliminates all personal responsibilty and weakens families. You can be a baby daddy or a baby momma and expect the state to support you and your children. You can drop out of school and the workforce and expect the state to take care of you.

It can't last. The money eventually has to run out. We are staring that day of reckoning right in the eye.

 

[Catalist]

This Week in Poverty: Obama

No one, neither party, wants to talk about poor U. S. CITIZENS, yet we send bombers to Libya, troops to Afghanistan, and food to every international disaster. Why don't we take care of our own poor first?

Give them education, training, and opportunity. Prepare them for a world where we all make our own breaks. We should not allow a single immigrant into the United States until all of our CITIZENS have been given a REAL opportunity to improve themselves, (that is opportunity, not free lunch), We need to take care of our own first! Because when we do, we can tax them too!

I happen to be a liberal Democrat, but that is not the point. Neither party is addressing this issue. We need to turn our citizens who are liabilities into assets. This is not a political idea, this is an American concept. If we get everyone paying, everyone pays less! The only ones who should not have to work are the totally disabled. This is not a partisan concept, this is an American concept!

Bill Clinton:
"When I signed the Welfare Reform Act in 1996, requiring able-bodied people who could work to do so, there was legitimate concern that there would not be jobs available for them because they tended to be under-educated and to have less experience, and tha when the economy slowed down, as it inevitably would, they would be the first laid off. While there have been some problems, welfare reform has been largely successful. The welfare rolls have dropped nearly 60%, more than 7 million people, by the time I left office, and have continued to drop since. In 2000, the percentage of Americans on welfare reached its lowest point in four decades. During the economic downturn of 2001, many of those who came off the welfare rolls were able to stay in the workforce in part due to policies designed to help them succeed",
Bill Clinton on Welfare & Poverty

In addition, Census Bureau data show that between 1993 and 2000, the percentage of low-income, single mothers with a job grew from 58 percent to nearly 75 percent, an increase of almost 30 percent.Welfare Reform in the United States Requires Welfare Recipients to Go to Work - 23k

In 1997 Obama opposed an Illinois welfare-reform bill, proposed by Republican senator Dave Syverson, which sought to move as many people as possible off the state welfare rolls and into paying jobs.
Obama's Voting Record and Policy Positions Prior to His Election As President - Discover the Networks


Despite its success, or perhaps because of it, President Obama and his allies are doing all they can to destroy welfare reform. Mr. Obama’s $862 billion stimulus package last February essentially abolished welfare reform by subsidizing the expansion of welfare rolls. The federal government now pays states 80 percent of the cost for each new family they add to their welfare rolls, a move that eliminates states’ incentive to push welfare recipients into the job force.
BAUER: Ending welfare reform - Washington Times

Partly as a consequence of the infusion of federal welfare funds, welfare rolls increased in 2009 for the first time since PRWORA was enacted, growing 5 percent as 200,000 more
Americans were added.
Welfare Reform Essays and Articles at eNotes

Why does this administration want to put more people on Welfare?

More and more folks are beginning to understand what those of us who have been around understood from the beginning: Obama's hope and change was always about the hope of a mooching voting block and a change back to failed policies of the past. They also understand now that Obama never intended to cut the deficit at all, let alone by half by the end of his first term. LOL!

Obama is an utter disaster and a pathological liar.

As an indy, I am beginning to believe that the only thing Republicans stand for is greed and tax breaks for the wealthy 1%. Can you name any legislation the Republicans have initiated since 2008 to help the middle class? I thought not. You are chasing us indys to Obama, and that is not where we want to go.

 

[SFC Ollie]

it”


Bill Clinton:
"When I signed the Welfare Reform Act in 1996, requiring able-bodied people who could work to do so, there was legitimate concern that there would not be jobs available for them because they tended to be under-educated and to have less experience, and tha when the economy slowed down, as it inevitably would, they would be the first laid off. While there have been some problems, welfare reform has been largely successful. The welfare rolls have dropped nearly 60%, more than 7 million people, by the time I left office, and have continued to drop since. In 2000, the percentage of Americans on welfare reached its lowest point in four decades. During the economic downturn of 2001, many of those who came off the welfare rolls were able to stay in the workforce in part due to policies designed to help them succeed",
Bill Clinton on Welfare & Poverty

In addition, Census Bureau data show that between 1993 and 2000, the percentage of low-income, single mothers with a job grew from 58 percent to nearly 75 percent, an increase of almost 30 percent.Welfare Reform in the United States Requires Welfare Recipients to Go to Work - 23k

In 1997 Obama opposed an Illinois welfare-reform bill, proposed by Republican senator Dave Syverson, which sought to move as many people as possible off the state welfare rolls and into paying jobs.
Obama's Voting Record and Policy Positions Prior to His Election As President - Discover the Networks


Despite its success, or perhaps because of it, President Obama and his allies are doing all they can to destroy welfare reform. Mr. Obama’s $862 billion stimulus package last February essentially abolished welfare reform by subsidizing the expansion of welfare rolls. The federal government now pays states 80 percent of the cost for each new family they add to their welfare rolls, a move that eliminates states’ incentive to push welfare recipients into the job force.
BAUER: Ending welfare reform - Washington Times

Partly as a consequence of the infusion of federal welfare funds, welfare rolls increased in 2009 for the first time since PRWORA was enacted, growing 5 percent as 200,000 more
Americans were added.
Welfare Reform Essays and Articles at eNotes

Why does this administration want to put more people on Welfare?

More and more folks are beginning to understand what those of us who have been around understood from the beginning: Obama's hope and change was always about the hope of a mooching voting block and a change back to failed policies of the past. They also understand now that Obama never intended to cut the deficit at all, let alone by half by the end of his first term. LOL!

Obama is an utter disaster and a pathological liar.

As an indy, I am beginning to believe that the only thing Republicans stand for is greed and tax breaks for the wealthy 1%. Can you name any legislation the Republicans have initiated since 2008 to help the middle class? I thought not. You are chasing us indys to Obama, and that is not where we want to go.

How many Jobs bills has the Republican held house passed that the Democrat held Senate refused to even look at? We can point fingers all day........

 

[Catalist]

The Democrats don't want to help them, they want them to stay put, they need their vote. The Republicans want to help them stand on their own.

You have been watching too much Fox News.

Taxpayers want value for every dollar paid.

Believe it or not Democrats know the value of a dollar just like Republicans!

Strange as it may seem to a OWS sympathizer, dollars have very little to do with helping a little girl that lives with a crack-head mom... The OWS is fixated on money as badly as they accuse their political rivals of being. Find TRUE COMPASSION and you'll see the solutions don't start as political fixes.. Folks who fixate on programs and dollars from Wash don't know JACK about helping the needy..

I would like to see a link verifying that, but I doubt there is one.

Surprise, surprise money is a part of the OWS message. We are talking in a world known as politics!

I wish I had a dollar for every time I posted this. OWS sees the promotional screw ups of the Tea Party, and is reading the Tea Party playbook. The American people understand money, compassion in politics is always suspect.

People who focus on the compassion of the American people will be disappointed. People who focus on the gain and loss of money to the taxpayer will be listened to. One does not need a four year degree to figure this out.

 

[Catalist]

Bullshit! The Dems have been putting miners and workers in fossil fuels out of jobs for years. Both parties had a hand in NAFTA: Bush1 negotiated it and Clinton signed it. Cut a bunch of lazy asses off of welfare, lock down the border, and let Americans pick tomatos for a living. It's honest work and it might give them some incentive to improve themselves.

You can't blame education on the Republicans either. Those teachers' unions that the Dems love so much have done a lot to screw the system by making it hard, if not impossible, to fire bad teachers.

Yeah, get off of the streets and stay in school. As flawed as the education system in America is, an education is still the ticket out of poverty.