TANF (Temp. Aid for Needy Families)
Anonymous said: "I love how he (Andy) insists that these people who happen to be poor bring it on themselves."
I didn't say that. I said that I didn't have much compassion for able-bodied adults who choose to live in poverty. Able-bodied adults (excluding the truly disabled and the elderly) who receive aid should be required to perform community service work, have a supervised job search, or training as a condition of receiving that aid.
"I don't think he understands the mandates of TANF (Temporary Aid for Needy Families - which was, I hate to admit, signed into law by Clinton). TANF perpetuates poverty. It doesn't help the families and individuals participating in the program get off of welfare."
The old system rewarded non-work and non-marriage. It also promoted dependence on government and illegitimacy, which in turn increased poverty, crime, etc. With TANF, it required for the first time work requirements that lead to self-sufficiency as a condition of getting aid. As a result, child poverty and dependence has gone down, and employment among single mothers has shot up. With that said, there is more work to be done because public housing and food stamps weren't really touched when TANF was passed in '96. Those two programs should be held to the same standards as in TANF.
"I suggest that both Steve and Andy read "Nickel and Dimed" by Barbara Ehrenreich. I'm reading her new book "Bait and Switch" right now, concerning middle class "poverty"."
Are we now creating another victim class in "middle class poverty"??? Are we now going to use federal aid to pay off car loans and credit cards??? Ha! :-)
Behethland said: "I understand where you are coming from when you say that you don't have much compassion for able-bodied adults who don't do anything to help themselves. I would agree that it is truly difficult to feel sorry for some people when you see how they choose to spend their money and time."
Yeah, it's human nature to feel this way. That's why socialism doesn't work because it goes against human nature. Remember, a basic tenant of socialism is to achieve a classless society. Well, what's the motivation for me to bust my butt working, knowing that the government is going to take 70% of what I earn and spread it out to people who choose to sit on their (_!_)'s. What's their motivation to work when they know that the government will be there to bail them out. Socialism is bad, very bad.
"You do care about what happens to children and the elderly. The problem is that children are under the care of adults. Whether you agree with the parent's lifestyle or not, it isn't the child's fault. Therefore, should the child suffer for the sins (used loosely, here) of the parent? We can't take all the needy children into an orphanage or half-way house in order to care for them all. You can't take children away from parents who love them and want to take care of them. I believe we would all agree on that. So what is the answer, if not social programs? How do you care for children when their parents can not? Do we really want to see children and the elderly on street corners begging for food?"
When TANF was signed in 1996, opponents (mainly liberal Democrats) said that it would throw an extra million children into poverty. Instead, 2.3 million fewer children are in poverty today than there were in 1996. The reason being is that one or both parents are now working. ... Granted, not every place is going to have a happy success story, but TANF should be applauded and should be strengthened to include work requirements for getting food stamps and public housing.
I didn't say that. I said that I didn't have much compassion for able-bodied adults who choose to live in poverty. Able-bodied adults (excluding the truly disabled and the elderly) who receive aid should be required to perform community service work, have a supervised job search, or training as a condition of receiving that aid.
"I don't think he understands the mandates of TANF (Temporary Aid for Needy Families - which was, I hate to admit, signed into law by Clinton). TANF perpetuates poverty. It doesn't help the families and individuals participating in the program get off of welfare."
The old system rewarded non-work and non-marriage. It also promoted dependence on government and illegitimacy, which in turn increased poverty, crime, etc. With TANF, it required for the first time work requirements that lead to self-sufficiency as a condition of getting aid. As a result, child poverty and dependence has gone down, and employment among single mothers has shot up. With that said, there is more work to be done because public housing and food stamps weren't really touched when TANF was passed in '96. Those two programs should be held to the same standards as in TANF.
"I suggest that both Steve and Andy read "Nickel and Dimed" by Barbara Ehrenreich. I'm reading her new book "Bait and Switch" right now, concerning middle class "poverty"."
Are we now creating another victim class in "middle class poverty"??? Are we now going to use federal aid to pay off car loans and credit cards??? Ha! :-)
Behethland said: "I understand where you are coming from when you say that you don't have much compassion for able-bodied adults who don't do anything to help themselves. I would agree that it is truly difficult to feel sorry for some people when you see how they choose to spend their money and time."
Yeah, it's human nature to feel this way. That's why socialism doesn't work because it goes against human nature. Remember, a basic tenant of socialism is to achieve a classless society. Well, what's the motivation for me to bust my butt working, knowing that the government is going to take 70% of what I earn and spread it out to people who choose to sit on their (_!_)'s. What's their motivation to work when they know that the government will be there to bail them out. Socialism is bad, very bad.
"You do care about what happens to children and the elderly. The problem is that children are under the care of adults. Whether you agree with the parent's lifestyle or not, it isn't the child's fault. Therefore, should the child suffer for the sins (used loosely, here) of the parent? We can't take all the needy children into an orphanage or half-way house in order to care for them all. You can't take children away from parents who love them and want to take care of them. I believe we would all agree on that. So what is the answer, if not social programs? How do you care for children when their parents can not? Do we really want to see children and the elderly on street corners begging for food?"
When TANF was signed in 1996, opponents (mainly liberal Democrats) said that it would throw an extra million children into poverty. Instead, 2.3 million fewer children are in poverty today than there were in 1996. The reason being is that one or both parents are now working. ... Granted, not every place is going to have a happy success story, but TANF should be applauded and should be strengthened to include work requirements for getting food stamps and public housing.
posted by Andy W. Rogers | 11:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home