How come welfare reform isn't saving us a fortune??

[sandnsea]

I was just reading that Bush article and it mentioned the 2 year maximum on welfare. If welfare was the reason for all the taxes and we've reduced welfare so dramatically, why aren't we flush with money? Texas gives an average of $188 welfare, anybody else know of a state that's lower? How come their budget deficit is second highest with a puny welfare payment like that? Where'd the savings go?

And, does anybody know what's happening to all these people? Any recent news articles, statistics, where'd they all go?

[Wonder]

1. because corporate welfare is so expensive!

:kick:

[aquart]

2. Because after the welfare maximum, something else kicks in.

"Safety net."

Or did you think states were going to let people starve?

[Warpy]

9. Some safety net!

Although the stories at present are anecdotal because the states with the worst laws are avoiding keeping records on them, those of us who pay attention to such things are hearing of women losing their kids because they've lost their jobs and homes, of women and kids on the street because the crap jobs they can get when they get off welfare don't pay enough for housing, of real hunger out there and an increasing demand for services to families reported at food banks across the country.

The Draconian cuts in welfare to abandoned families may have saved Uncle Sugar a pittance, but the cost in human terms is mounting and increasingly tragic as the economy for working people continues to sour.

Compassionate conservatism, my ass.

[BlueState]

3. Because it was all propaganda.

Very successful though. For years the Republicans made welfare a huge issue and convinced many Americans that all the tax money that was being taken out of their paychecks was going directly into the pockets of the mythical "welfare queens."

But the truth is that Welfare (Aid to Dependent Children) together with food stamps never amounted to more than 3% of the federal budget. And despite the constant harping on the creation of welfare dependency most people collected for less than two years anyway.

[Hamlette]

4. Blue state is right

although I thought it was less than 2%...why quibble.

It is an excellent question though. The time limit was 5 years (federal) although many states made it shorter. And the welfare rolls dropped dramatically BEFORE welfare reform (yes, it was all propaganda, a safe non issue). They dropped, we presume, because of the excellent economy brought to you by Bill Clinton.

And yes, the average welfare recipient is a 34 year old single mom with 1-2 kids who is on welfare less than 2 years. Not the welfare queen image.

When the welfare rolls went down the number of people receiving food stamps also went down. Food stamps were never part of welfare reform (there were some changes to food stamps with the welfare reform legislation but they were minor.) Anyway, when food stamps went down the feds freaked. We are under pressure to get the number of people using food stamps up. By the feds. In fact, we get a prize (millions of bucks) if we can get more people signed up for food stamps. Go figure. (Its an agriculture program. Agreed, people should eat. It is to support farmers, a worthy cause. But, when they scream about welfare costing so much just roll your eyes and say "why are you trying to increase the food stamp rolls then?")

[jafap]

5. At least in Wisconsin

they always said that welfare reform was going to cost more than welfare itself (at least at the start), but they wanted to spend the money because they hate welfare and, of course, people are so much better off at minimum wage jobs than they are on welfare.

[JackSwift]

6. It was always a very small percentage

of the budget, in the area of one percent. Now Republicans generally consider Social Security and Medicare to be welfare, but they won't say so publicly.

[jfkennedy]

7. 9/11 was because of welfare reform

Considering the fact that the world sees us as having no compassion for our own poor or the poor of the world. And in light of the fact that a few terrorists used $250.000 and has cost our ecomomy in the war alone 1.2 Trillion dollars, it seems logical to conclude that welfare reform has failed.

The Death penalty as well did not stop the biggest mass murder in US History on 9/11.

[sandnsea]

8. So why isn't this a campaign issue, for Kucinich maybe

This reform was supposed to save us millions, billions; isn't it time somebody exposed the lie for what it was? That's all I'm saying.