Welfare Reforms Under Clinton.

[NativeTexan]

I keep seeing on DU so many who will broadly criticize those "draconian" welfare reforms passed under the Clinton Administration, and can't help but wonder why some people are so adamant about it.

I understand that some were taken off out of the system that shouldn't have been, but yet...there were always some that couldn't get on, and others that shouldn't have been there in the first place.

The selling of Food Stamps to use the money for things unauthorized like tobacco or even drugs, was running rampant throughout the system, is just one example of wide-spread abuse that I have personally witnessed.

But more importantly...MUCH more importantly...is the fact that so many people went from welfare-to-work! And most were not just burger flipping jobs, they were jobs that not only allowed people to be more self-reliant, but more involved in the welfare of our country. They were not only off the welfare rolls, but back IN the taxpaying rolls. That meant not being a pull on the economy, but actually swinging 180 degrees and putting money back IN instead.

And that is something that TRICKLE-DOWN ECONOMICS can NEVER, EVER DO!!
Mainly because nothing ever trickles down below the CEO levels.

That is why we experienced, under President Clinton, the longest peace-time economic growth period in American history! That is how his administration was able to creat 25,000,000+ new jobs during the Clinton years.

That, on a personal note, is how during my late thirties and early forties, I was able to do so much better financially than at any time before, and definitely since!

Was it a perfect program? Of course not. But was it better that the OLD plan? Heck yes!! Was it ever planned on being the "end-game" in welfare reform? Absolutely NOT!

The Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld bloodless coup of 2000 brought it to a complete halt. And that was because we got a "government" that didn't care about the poor OR the middle-class. One that the economy was so far down their list of priorities that it will take YEARS to surface again!

People don't just always need a hand-out. Sometimes that just need a helping-hand to get them going. Others aren't that lucky, and it is incumbent on us as taxpayers and Americans to help those folks who have no other survival options available to them.

I am a big believer in "NO AMERICAN LEFT BEHIND"!! And the more folks that we can get on tax rolls to help, the better. Whether that is non-taxpayers from the bottom, or those non-taxpayers that Bush calls "his base".

[Mythsaje]

1. One issue...

People thrown off the roles into minimum or low-wage jobs end up taking more out of the system than they put into it, by way of Earned Income Tax Credits and other perks. It's not that I resent these things, but I'm not sure it helps ANY of us in the end. Public Assistance should include mandatory education that provides greater opportunity in the long run than a continuing life as a wage-slave to the continuing economic detriment of us all...

[NativeTexan]

10. There were fewer....

....folks done that way. Trickle-UP economics, like Clinton practiced, created more GOOD paying jobs than at any peaceful time in our history.

[jbnow]

2. Clinton's program had

some errors, at least I have heard even custodial grandparents had to work.

I didn't agree with it starting for the mom when the baby was 3 months old.

But the parts I knew about directly were good, but they became bad under bush.
That is with Clinton they had to be in work and/or training 20 hours per week. bush increased it to 30 and then 40 hours despite the worsening job market.

20 hours was good, especially for moms with kids in school, but really for many it was good. My office (but not my program) worked with a lot of the moms as they got ready to find work, helping with whatever was needed. I got to know many of them and many stopped in now and then after they were working. It was great to see them blossom and gain confidence.

At bush's 30 and 40 hours it often meant two or even three part time jobs. This is not good. That doesn't include the time commuting between jobs or the crummy public transportation at odd hours or the complications in day care and it just added to stress, not esteem. When 20 was required many did or moved to more and that was great. But it is a bad requirement.

Under Clinton people could get training for I believe a year. Some took secretarial or aides courses or whatever, some completed a degree started long ago. Under bush you can get 3 months in a year. That period doesn't lead to good jobs.

Under Clinton you came out ahead if you worked, day carte aide continued, especially for low income earners and they were not left without medical coverage, they could continue on Medicaid even if there income was over the measly regular limit. bush cut the time and the assurances.

So when it started even if some were mad or scared or whatever the majority really came to appreciate it. Many said they didn't think they'd have done it if they didn't have to or didn't think they could and were glad they did. Others who planned to still appreciated the help in choosing job areas, resumes, interview practice, tips and job leads or training. (Those were cut too)

but bush's is just not the same. There were many who really had no skills or a lower ability. Finding one part time job and learning and holding it was a great accomplishment. Sure I know a lot of single parents work full time, I was a single parent. But some would need to build slowly and some just shouldn't do it. They might be very slow or not that stable and they still need to take care of their kids, that is important too. They should not be pushed off the system, they should do what they can with support. People matter.

So once it was good, it didn't stay that way.

[oasis]

9. Excellent post. (n/t)

[NativeTexan]

11. Thanks.....

....good points! Bush doesn't give a s__t!

[greendog]

3. Two thirds of welfare goes to children...

...average age: 7yo.

[NativeTexan]

12. Because there are more kids than adults, I agree.

But working parents fix most of that. We aren't seeing much of that since 2000.

[AtomicKitten]

4. Clinton lifted many out of poverty.

[nickshepDEM]

6. Indeed.

[Sparkly]

5. "Welfare-to-work" works when there's WORK!! nt

[NativeTexan]

14. Yes indeed.....but.......

........unfortunately, there is no work due to Bush (lack of) policies!

[Odin2005]

7. Welfare reform was about Clinton sucking up to middle class suburbanites..

...at the expense of the inner city poor, which the party takes for granted. Thats DLC "Third Way" politics for you, support the majority oppinion even if the majority opinion is a result of misconceptions and lies about "Chicago welfare queens." Truth and morality doesn't matter anymore if you are a DLC head honcho, truth and morality to them is what the majority opinion is.

[jbnow]

8. Except for the young age

of the baby when the requirement started, what do you think was bad about it? I already wrong a long post about how well I saw it work for the moms (when it was just 20 hours and they came out ahead). I had no preconception about welfare moms and I even was one for a little while after my son's dad died. We lived in a smaller city but it really seemed of benefit to the moms and through them to the kids.

Since the requirement was 20 hours it didn't knock them off welfare, it got them out in the world. Many moved into full time jobs with full benefits and decent pay but they weren't forced to. Some stayed part time. It was a good thing here. Maybe it was harder in big cities? less support to help them get started and work out the bugs? A vast majority of the moms I knew ended up a lot happier.

[NativeTexan]

13. MOST under Clinton's program......

........went from welfare to good paying jobs! I am middleclass, and except for taking the able, training them, and putting them in jobs where they paid taxes back in, instead of drawing welfare out, it didn't affect me at all. But, these people were given a way to pick themselves up, some for the first times in their lives.

[Boredtodeath]

15. Here's just one example

I know a family who's sole wage earner spent a year on medical leave of absence. No income. No way to pay the bills.

But the big issue is the medical care. After 2 years, this wage earner's medical benefits in medicaid cease to exist. Those $1,000.00/mo prescriptions which are keeping him alive are out of pocket because after 2 years, it's pay up or die.

He works. He doesn't take home enough money to support his family AND pay for these prescriptions. His employer's insurance plan denies him coverage for a pre-existing condition.

So, give me a clue........how does he pay for his meds?

That's just one part of Bill Clinton's Welfare Reform.

[NativeTexan]

16. Once again....I never called it perfect, but...........

..........in more cases than ever before, it has worked. Unfortunately, your friend isn't the kind that should have been included. I wish that it had more targeted ABUSE not just use.

[zann725]

17. What a crock! Michael Moore's "Columbine" movie showed one

Welfare mom-turned to working mother (with THREE...count 'em THREE jobs just to make ends barely meet), lost her child due to her lack of care...during her long-required working hours.

And remember the Mom who Shrub interviewed during one of his "screened" town hall meetings who said she also worked three jobs, and barely got sleep. Yet was praised for living the "American" dream.

The pittance that most people get on Welfare, and the "abuse" and I do MEAN psychological AND physical abuse most get while applying for Welfare for the pittance of food and barely enough hotel vouchers to cover one-out-of three days/mo...is hardly a "scam" or "windfall"...enough to "pull ANY ONE up by the bootstraps."

That Big Dog was the one to take these pittances of help from these poor (alleged) gold-diggers...DOES now explain his "closeness"/things in common now with Poppy B. That someone who grew up in a poor white alcoholic trailer background, had such little empathy for those in similar conditions, says A LOT indeed.

To instead focus on those few isolated cases where TRULY struggling (often single moms) allegedly "sold" their food stamps for drugs, etc. is insulting...and (if true) minor in comparison to the suitcases and shopping bags of U.S.taxpayer money that "disappeared" via the hands of Contractors throughout the current Iraq debacle.

Yeah...focus instead on the few "pennies" that truly poor, needy people got to merely stay alive. FDR would roll over at your Dicksonian "American" heartlessness.