Liberal POV on Gov't Aid to the Poor

[SAYIT]

The Atlantic's most recent assessment of Bill Clinton's 1996 welfare reform focuses on the result of having turned cash hand-outs into programs like food stamps, rent subsidies and medicaid. It concludes, not surprisingly, that this type of aid leaves recipients "cash poor."

Woo!

To the left it's not good enough that we spend $20,833 per recipient because we just don't give it to them in cash!

That article, and another from The Wash Post, try to argue that costs we absorb on behalf of the poor does not count as real aid despite the fact that even a moderately intelligent 11 year old could tell you that money the poor doesn't have to spend on such things as health care, food and housing - as most Americans do - is made available for other things.

As I recall, those cash hand-outs were often spent by the recipients in such a way as to leave them without health care, housing and food which is why the gov't took the cash away and provided programs instead.

20 Years Since Welfare 'Reform'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...bd69ce2-7ba8-11e3-97d3-b9925ce2c57b_blog.html

 

[Fenton Lum]

As you recall huh, well there's ya some proof right there.

 

[Slade3200]

Makes sense to me... I don't see any reason for our gov to be sending people cash. I'm fine with tax breaks, I don't think the poor and even middle class should be paying much in taxes. As for food stamps, subsidys and welfare checks for housing and utilities etc, these should be very limited. if people can get self sufficient after 6-12 months then the checks stop and they join a work program that requires higher accountability and action on the recipients part, in return it provides them with resources to live and find work but is not comfortable enough to put them in a state of dependency on the gov. That's my 2 cents

 

[SAYIT]

As you recall huh, well there's ya some proof right there.

You (sometimes) seem lucid and rational. Why do you suppose we switched from cash hand-outs to direct provider payment (food stamps, housing vouchers, health care, etc)? Surely even you can see it requires more gov't effort than just sending money to the recipients (and we all know how much gov't workers love the extra work).

Makes sense to me... I don't see any reason for our gov to be sending people cash. I'm fine with tax breaks, I don't think the poor and even middle class should be paying much in taxes. As for food stamps, subsidys and welfare checks for housing and utilities etc, these should be very limited. if people can get self sufficient after 6-12 months then the checks stop and they join a work program that requires higher accountability and action on the recipients part, in return it provides them with resources to live and find work but is not comfortable enough to put them in a state of dependency on the gov. That's my 2 cents

This thread really isn't about the nature or effectiveness of gov't freebies - although that is another juicy topic - but rather the monumentally twisted liberal POV that finds the $62,499/yr in benefits we provide to a family of 3 to be somehow worth less because we no longer pay it in cash.

 

[Slade3200]

As you recall huh, well there's ya some proof right there.

You (sometimes) seem lucid and rational. Why do you suppose we switched from cash hand-outs to direct provider payment (food stamps, housing vouchers, health care, etc)? Surely even you can see it requires more gov't effort than just sending money to the recipients (and we all know how much gov't workers love the extra work).

Makes sense to me... I don't see any reason for our gov to be sending people cash. I'm fine with tax breaks, I don't think the poor and even middle class should be paying much in taxes. As for food stamps, subsidys and welfare checks for housing and utilities etc, these should be very limited. if people can get self sufficient after 6-12 months then the checks stop and they join a work program that requires higher accountability and action on the recipients part, in return it provides them with resources to live and find work but is not comfortable enough to put them in a state of dependency on the gov. That's my 2 cents

This thread really isn't about the nature or effectiveness of gov't freebies - although that is another juicy topic - but rather the monumentally twisted liberal POV that finds the $62,499/yr in benefits we provide to a family of 3 to be somehow worth less because we no longer pay it in cash.

Those damn twisted liberals... Always doing things wrong. They are so stupid

Is that better?

 

[sealybobo]

As you recall huh, well there's ya some proof right there.

You (sometimes) seem lucid and rational. Why do you suppose we switched from cash hand-outs to direct provider payment (food stamps, housing vouchers, health care, etc)? Surely even you can see it requires more gov't effort than just sending money to the recipients (and we all know how much gov't workers love the extra work).

Makes sense to me... I don't see any reason for our gov to be sending people cash. I'm fine with tax breaks, I don't think the poor and even middle class should be paying much in taxes. As for food stamps, subsidys and welfare checks for housing and utilities etc, these should be very limited. if people can get self sufficient after 6-12 months then the checks stop and they join a work program that requires higher accountability and action on the recipients part, in return it provides them with resources to live and find work but is not comfortable enough to put them in a state of dependency on the gov. That's my 2 cents

This thread really isn't about the nature or effectiveness of gov't freebies - although that is another juicy topic - but rather the monumentally twisted liberal POV that finds the $62,499/yr in benefits we provide to a family of 3 to be somehow worth less because we no longer pay it in cash.

I think we don’t send cash because they won’t spend it on good things. What are you proposing?

As a conservative right leaning rino you like work requirements right? I think most poor people won’t do the work and we will save lots of money

 

[sealybobo]

As you recall huh, well there's ya some proof right there.

You (sometimes) seem lucid and rational. Why do you suppose we switched from cash hand-outs to direct provider payment (food stamps, housing vouchers, health care, etc)? Surely even you can see it requires more gov't effort than just sending money to the recipients (and we all know how much gov't workers love the extra work).

Makes sense to me... I don't see any reason for our gov to be sending people cash. I'm fine with tax breaks, I don't think the poor and even middle class should be paying much in taxes. As for food stamps, subsidys and welfare checks for housing and utilities etc, these should be very limited. if people can get self sufficient after 6-12 months then the checks stop and they join a work program that requires higher accountability and action on the recipients part, in return it provides them with resources to live and find work but is not comfortable enough to put them in a state of dependency on the gov. That's my 2 cents

This thread really isn't about the nature or effectiveness of gov't freebies - although that is another juicy topic - but rather the monumentally twisted liberal POV that finds the $62,499/yr in benefits we provide to a family of 3 to be somehow worth less because we no longer pay it in cash.

Those damn twisted liberals... Always doing things wrong. They are so stupid

Is that better?

3 years later he finally educated me too. He very eloquently told me how stupid I am and it worked. I woke up.

 

[SAYIT]

This thread really isn't about the nature or effectiveness of gov't freebies - although that is another juicy topic - but rather the monumentally twisted liberal POV that finds the $62,499/yr in benefits we provide to a family of 3 to be somehow worth less because we no longer pay it in cash.

Those damn twisted liberals... Always doing things wrong. They are so stupid. Is that better?

Awww … playing the petulant victim again. Did the mean man upset your delicate sensibilities? Your response was typically childish … for a leftard. Not all liberal ideas are twisted (nor are all liberals) but virtually all "progressives" - who are anything but progressive - and all their policies are. Good intentions are fine and noble but only a leftard fails to consider the downside of the silliness they promote. Take California's proposed single-payer plan for example. It failed to pass their legislature. Care to guess why?

I suppose you know the tale of that 14 yr Seattle resident who - after working hard to elect a "progressive" councilperson found her response ("What is this? Nazi Germany?") to his well-intentioned ideas to improve both his neighborhood and the lives of the homeless who squat there offensive enough to pack and move.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwio0dzjlqDgAhUvSN8KHQQYD_MQFjAAegQICRAB&url=https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/after-14-years-ive-had-it-im-leaving-seattle/&usg=AOvVaw2z-AOOYY28j1DvmZpOQG_u