So, based on what Dem's said ten years ago...minorities and other poor would be living in the streets, eating garbage out of the dumpster. Why? Because they don't understand human nature. Here is what actually happened: Since 1996:
So, as in most cases, the Dem's are on the wrong side of an issue. And once again, it is the conservative philosophy of working hard that helps the poor. Like I have said many times, once the liberal thought process and liberal leaders are kicked out of the inner cities, there can finally be hope.
So, where are Kennedy and Pelosi and all the other Dem leaders who voted against this 10 years ago praising how the people that vote for Dem's are going to work and have made a better lives for themselves? You'll never hear that, because they never wanted them to get off welfare....
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Welfare Reform: 10 years later
Welfare rolls have declined by 57 percent.
Fewer families are on welfare than at any time since 1969.
Employment among single mothers has increased dramatically, reaching 63 percent today, the highest level ever.
Child support collections have nearly doubled.
Nearly a million and a half fewer children live in poverty than a decade ago. Child poverty among African-Americans has declined from 40 percent to 33 percent; among Hispanics, from 40 percent to 29 percent.
We are also beginning to see a modest reducÂtion in out-of-wedlock births among African-Americans, and among all low-income teenage girls.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
Scorpion says---
Hard work is the key and always
has been. Nothing is actually for free. Those who adjust do well,those who don't look for anything and everything they can get.America's GREATEST GENERATION,
never asked for or expected anything.
You mean if we removed the incentives for immoral behavior, immoral behavior would decrease?
Who would have guessed?
I don't believe the Dems ever thought in terms of getting anyone off of welfare, they only concerned themselves with providing it. If they give, that is, money from tax payers, they will get, as in votes. People who do for themselves find there's not much reason to vote for Dems. People who THINK they can't do for themselves, keep their hands out for the Dems to fill.
you are 100% correct...but even if you were going to say the Dems didn't do it JUST to get votes...they still were wrong...
they believe that minorities and other poor can not live without their help...they have been proven wrong about human nature once again...
Marshall, sounds a lot like the farming corporations and oil corporations constantly holding out their hands for the Republics to fill with money.
Jason, what immoral behavior are you referring to?
I knew the libs couldn't argue my point...it is clear as day..
Scorp, didnt 'Americas Greatest' generation live through the greatest welfare stint of all, the depression and all its greatest welfare?
For the simple-mided of you, like marshall, the Cons are all for pumping welfare into major corporations, pork and special interests who finance them or support their agenda. Get real.
game, did you have a point? It doesnt appear that there is really a thesis to this post. At best, its just your ranting about what you 'think' is going on. Oh, and as I said before, Dems arent supported by teh inner city. Nobody chooses a non-voting segment of the population as their base.
Scorpion says---
Someone is simple minded if they
think there were lots of hand-outs
when my grandparents were trying to
get by. Fact is, they got by-then
moved into World War.
Rhyno is comparing soup lines to the out of control socialism of the 70's, 80's and most of the 90's.
The poor of this country are the richest poor in the world...
All the kids at school who get free lunch have cell phones, video games, nice shoes, ect...
ya, really poor...
people in the great depression had NOTHING and got a bowl of soup and some bread moron...
and bringing up coorperation welfare shows you can't argue THIS topic...that Dem's don't get it on this issue or any issue.
Welfare doesn't work, when the Right cut welfare down...they said things that never happened, because they do not understand human nature...that is a pretty good theis that was supported by 10 years of FACTS...oopppps...sorry, that dirty word that destroys all your theories...
rhyno,
If you want to play with ad hominen attacks, you'll lose there, too.
But for you and Jim,
For the record, I'm not partial to corporate welfare either. If they can't compete in the market place, they're supposed to close. That's how it's supposed to work, and corporate welfare skews the dynamics of the free market system. However, I will say, that when a corporation closes, 100's or 1000's lose jobs, and the closing impacts all the companies with which it did business as well as impacting the tax base of the community and state in which it operated. So propping up a corp in trouble has it's advantages. I would like to see all of the dough paid back.
If you're talking about tax breaks for corps, that stimulates more productivity, which means more jobs and/or tax revenues from profits, and/or entices the corp to set up shop in the area offering the breaks so that the area can benefit from the jobs and tax revs.
Welfare would be a lot more palatable if the recipients paid it back when they got gigs. But you'd always have those who won't work. For them, a cut off point is required.
There will always be something for the truly needy, between gov programs and local community and faith based sources, which are the most effecient. But everyone needs to make what effort is required. You know...ask not what your country can do for you...don't you guys buy that anymore?
FYI:
Clinton started the welfare to work program, in an effort to stop welfare altogether, and it was started after he had well been into his presidency (Feb. 1993), so there goes the argument that he started it just to get votes. Also disputes the claim that states that Dems are just the welfare givers.
GWB is having problems, to say the least, doing anything with it, much less getting and keeping people off the welfare roles.
About the most he's done, is start his Faith-based Initiative, which in itself is a kind of controversy.
He stated here, under Work and responsibility to replace welfare, what he would do on this agenda; it's nothing that Clinton didn't already start in his administration. He has also done very little about the housing problems for the poor that he stated on the same page.
According to this, under Building on Welfare Reform, it's stated that The largest welfare caseload decline in history occurred between 1996 and 2003, with the caseload falling 60 percent. The caseload had already reduced by that much when Clinton was president, between 1992 & 2000. The current agenda (GWB routed) is clearly trying to state that this drop in caseload was in GWB's administration (or at least lead the reader to believe it), but it wasn't. It's fact that it wasn't, and is stated in one of the above links in this post as well.
According to this, Clinton had the longest economic expansion in history, created over 22 million jobs (and this is backed up by other sources as well), had the lowest unemployment rate in history (and this is also backed up by other sources), had the highest income levels in history, had the lowest poverty rate in 20 years, and had the smallest welfare roles in 32 years. All of the above previously listed in this post, also affect the welfare roles. He also reduced crime by increasing police for the streets, and by enacting the safe handgun laws. There goes the argument that the Dems promote crime. Insofar as the claim that Clinton was a chicken on war, he did bomb Iraq for WMDs, and it is indeed claimed by sources that he ended them (the WMDs) then and there. He also got over 1700 warheads dismantled in the Soviet Union, and signed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act himself (2/95 & in 1996. He also saw to it that the terrorists of the 1993 WTC bombings were jailed, never to terrorize again.
Clinton also had the lowest spending in 30 years; so that disputes claims that he was a "socialist government spender", and the people of the U.S. had the lowest federal income tax burden in many years, which is something that the Repubs currently claim to want to do, but never really do.
Any other generalized Dem claims you need disputed? If you would open your eyes to what is there, you will see that you have more in common than you think with the "other side". There's more, but this for now is sufficient.
Welfare reform, as I recall it, was pushed by the GOP in congress after it's Contract With America and Clinton signed on. But where, anon, are you getting your statistics? What policies of Bubba's created jobs? I believe advances in technology AKA, the tech boom, and dot.com bubble had something to do with jobs and improved economy. He also didn't have little complications like 9/11, Katrina and war to contend with. Each of these things play havoc with the economy alone and Bush dealt with all three and our economy, unemployment numbers and other indicators have been "robust" as the financials like to say. Michael Medved talks about these things all the time and his sources provide much different numbers than yours. So here we go again---you guys believe your guys, we believe ours. How do we get to it? Also, I don't believe he paid for all those cops. He mandated the increase, but states paid for them, not federal tax monies. I could be wrong there, but that's how I remember it. And once again, he jailed a few terrorists, but those that supported and sponsored them were not. He jailed a few Nazi's, but Hitler's still running the show.
Did u even bother to read the sources? At least one was straight from the White House --
Now, the White House wouldn't lie, would they?
Post a Comment