Clintons' Heartless, Flawed Welfare Reform: Ending of AFDC Caused Homelessness and Poverty Increase

[Dems Will Win]

Hillary Clinton should be ashamed of herself -- she is no friend of poor women and children, much as she touts it. The Clintons pushed through the end of AFDC and the partial replacement of it by temporary TANF funding. Then you are kicked off the rolls entirely. As this report shows, the Clintons' heartless plan has greatly increased both homelessness and poverty.

She truly is a hypocrite, running on her helping of single mothers and children!!! (Note to Mods, this is a report from the NCH, which is asking for distribution with credit)

National Coalition for the Homeless

Homeless Families with Children
NCH Fact Sheet #12
Published by the National Coalition for the Homeless, August 2007

Homelessness is a devastating experience for families. It disrupts virtually every aspect of
family life, damaging the physical and emotional health of family members, interfering with
children’s education and development, and frequently resulting in the separation of family
members. The dimensions, causes, and consequences of family homelessness are discussed
below. An overview of policy issues and a list of resources for further study are also provided.

DIMENSIONS

One of the fastest growing segments of the homeless population is families with children. A
2005 study revealed that of the counted homeless population there were 98,452 homeless
families, making up 41% of the entire homeless population (Homelessness Counts, 2007).

Research indicates that families, single mothers, and children make up the largest group of
people who are homeless in rural areas (Vissing, 1996). Approximately 924,000 children are
homeless, and in 1995, 4.2% of children under the age of one year were homeless (Urban
Institute, 2000; Culhane & Metraux, 1999). Homeless families are most commonly headed by
single mothers in their late 20s with approximately two children (Rog & Buckner, 2007).

Homeless families often double up with other families. This causes them to be exempt from the
federal definition of chronic homelessness, which states that a chronically homeless person is
one who is on the streets or in a shelter (The Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress,
2007). Therefore, many homeless families are prevented from receiving assistance.

Recent evidence confirms that homelessness among families is increasing. Requests for assisted
housing by low-income families and individuals increased in 86 percent of the cities during the
past year. The same study found the requests increased by an average of 5% in 2005 (U.S.
Conference of Mayors, 2005). While the average number of emergency shelter beds for
homeless families with children increased by 8% in 2005, an average of 32% of requests for
shelter by homeless families were denied in 2005 due to lack of resources.

CAUSES

Poverty and the lack of affordable housing are the principal causes of family homelessness.
While the number of poor people decreased every year between 1993 and 2000, in recent years
the number and percentage of poor people has increased. The percentage of poor people has
risen from 11.3% of the population in 2000 to 12.1% in 2002 (U.S. House of Representatives,
2004), and by 2004 the number of poor people grew by 4.3 million from 2000 (Center of Budget
and Policy Priorities, 2004). Today, 35.2% of persons living in poverty are children; in fact, the
2004 poverty rate of 17.8% for children under 18 years old is significantly higher than the
poverty rate for any other age group (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2005).

Declining wages and changes in welfare programs account for increasing poverty among
families. Declining wages have put housing out of reach for many families: in every state,
metropolitan area, county, and town, more than the minimum wage is required to afford a one- or
two-bedroom apartment at Fair Market Rent (National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2000).

In fact, the median wage needed to afford a two-bedroom apartment is more than twice the
minimum wage. Until its repeal in August 1996, the largest cash assistance program for poor
families with children was the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program.

Between 1970 and 1994, the typical state's AFDC benefits for a family of three fell 47%, after
adjusting for inflation (Greenberg and Baumohl, 1996). The Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (the federal welfare reform law) repealed the AFDC
program and replaced it with a block grant program called Temporary Assistance to Needy
Families (TANF). Current TANF benefits and Food Stamps combined are below the poverty
level in every state; in fact, the median TANF benefit for a family of three is approximately one thirdof the poverty level. In addition, as the percentage and number of poor people has
increased in recent years, the number of people receiving TANF has decreased. Between 2000
and 2003 the number of poor children rose 11%, and during this same period, the number of
people receiving TANF fell by nine percent (Center of Budget and Policy Priorities, 2004). Thus,
contrary to popular opinion, welfare does not provide relief from poverty.

Welfare caseloads have dropped sharply since the passage and implementation of welfare reform
legislation. However, declining welfare rolls simply mean that fewer people are receiving
benefits -- not that they are employed or doing better financially. Early findings suggest that
although more families are moving from welfare to work, many of them are faring poorly due to
low wages and inadequate work supports. Only a small fraction of welfare recipients’ new jobs
pay above-poverty wages; most of the new jobs pay far below the poverty line (Children’s
Defense Fund and the National Coalition for the Homeless, 1998). Moreover, extreme poverty is
growing more common for children, especially those in female-headed and working families.
This increase can be traced directly to the declining number of children lifted above one-half of
the poverty line by government cash assistance for the poor.

As a result of loss of benefits, low wages, and unstable employment, many families leaving
welfare struggle to get medical care, food, and housing. Many lose health insurance, despite
continued Medicaid eligibility. A study found that 675,000 people lost health insurance in 1997
as a result of the federal welfare reform legislation, including 400,000 children (Families USA,
1999). Moreover, over 725,000 workers, laid off from their jobs due to the recession in 2000,
lost their health insurance (Families USA, 2001). According to the Children’s Defense Fund,
over nine million children in America have no health insurance, and over 90 percent of them are
in working families. In addition, housing is rarely affordable for families leaving welfare for low
wages, yet subsidized housing is so limited that fewer than one in four TANF families
nationwide lives in public housing or receives a housing voucher to help them rent a private unit.
For most families leaving the rolls, housing subsidies are not an option. In some communities,
1 FMRs are the monthly amounts “needed to rent privately owned, decent, safe, and sanitary
rental housing of a modest (nonluxury) nature with suitable amenities.” 62 Federal Register
50724 (September 26, 1997) HUD determines FMRs for localities in all 50 states.

Former welfare families appear to be experiencing homelessness in increasing numbers

(Children's Defense Fund and the National Coalition for the Homeless, 1998).
The shrinking supply of affordable housing is another factor underlying the growth in family
homelessness. The gap between the number of affordable housing units and the number of
people needing them is currently the largest on record, estimated at 4.4 million units (Daskal,
1998). According to HUD, in recent years the shortages of affordable housing are most severe
for units affordable to renters with extremely low incomes. Federal support for low-income
housing has fallen 49% from 1980 to 2003 (National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2005).

The affordable housing crisis has had a particularly severe impact on poor families with children.
Families with children represent 40% of households with “worst case housing needs” -- those
renters with incomes below 50% of the area median income who are involuntarily displaced, pay
more than half of their income for rent and utilities, or live in substandard housing (U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1998). With less income available for food and
other necessities, these families are only an accident, illness, or paycheck away from becoming
homeless.

More recently, the strong economy has caused rents to soar, putting housing out of reach for the
poorest Americans. After the 1980s, income growth has never kept pace with rents, and since
2000, the incomes of low-income households has declined as rents continue to rise (National
Low Income Housing Coalition, 2005). As a result, more families are in need of housing
assistance. The average waiting period for a Section 8 rental assistance voucher rose from 26
months to 28 months between 1996 and 1998. Today the average wait for Section 8 Vouchers is
35 months (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2004). Excessive waiting lists for public housing mean
that families must remain in shelters or inadequate housing arrangements longer. Consequently,
there is less shelter space available for other homeless families, who must find shelter elsewhere
or live on the streets.

Domestic violence also contributes to homelessness among families. When a woman leaves an
abusive relationship, she often has nowhere to go. This is particularly true of women with few
resources. Lack of affordable housing and long waiting lists for assisted housing mean that
many women are forced to choose between abuse and the streets. In a study of 777 homeless
parents (the majority of whom were mothers) in ten U.S. cities, 22% said they had left their last
place of residence because of domestic violence (Homes for the Homeless, 1998). In addition,
50% of the cities surveyed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors identified domestic violence as a
primary cause of homelessness (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2005). Nationally, approximately
half of all women and children experiencing homelessness are fleeing domestic violence (Zorza,
1991; National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 2001).

CONSEQUENCES

Homelessness severely impacts the health and well being of all family members. Children
without a home are in fair or poor health twice as often as other children, and have higher rates
of asthma, ear infections, stomach problems, and speech problems (Better Homes Fund, 1999).
Homeless children also experience more mental health problems, such as anxiety, depression,
and withdrawal. They are twice as likely to experience hunger, and four times as likely to have
delayed development. These illnesses have potentially devastating consequences if not treated
early.

Deep poverty and housing instability are especially harmful during the earliest years of
childhood; alarmingly, it is estimated that almost half of children in shelter are under the age of
five (Homes for the Homeless, 1998). School-age homeless children face barriers to enrolling
and attending school, including transportation problems, residency requirements, inability to
obtain previous school records, and lack of clothing and school supplies.

Parents also suffer the ill effects of homelessness and poverty. One study of homeless and low-income housed families found that both groups experienced higher rates of depressive disorders
than the overall female population, and that one-third of homeless mothers (compared to onefourth
of poor housed mothers) had made at least one suicide attempt (Bassuk et al., 1996). In
both groups, over one-third of the sample had a chronic health condition.

Homelessness frequently breaks up families. Families may be separated as a result of shelter
policies which deny access to older boys or fathers. Separations may also be caused by
placement of children into foster care when their parents become homeless. In addition, parents
may leave their children with relatives and friends in order to save them from the ordeal of
homelessness or to permit them to continue attending their regular school. The break-up of
families is a well-documented phenomenon: in 56% of the 27 cities surveyed in 2004, homeless
families had to break up in order to enter emergency shelters (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2004).

http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/facts/families.pdf

Hillary and Bill's so called Welfare "Reform" has been the worst thing for women and children in recent memory.

Read it and weep Hillary supporters...

And Hillary went along with the Bush version of welfare in 2002!!

It was bad enough that the Bush Administration co-opted the Children's Defense Fund slogan "Leave No Child Behind." Then the most famous former board member of CDF, Hillary Rodham Clinton, apparently decided to leave children behind in her rush to the political center, endorsing a bill that contained some of the worst elements of the Bush welfare reform plan.

Fortunately, Hillary's Senate colleagues decided to take a courageous stand. To the surprise and relief of advocates, the Senate produced a bipartisan welfare reform bill that is more progressive than the current law in almost every way.

The Senate bill, which emerged from the Finance Committee and soon goes to the floor, repudiates the White House vision of welfare reform. But the final version is still up in the air, and the politics of welfare reform are fickle, as evidenced by Hillary's unexpectedly harsh position.

The House of Representatives and the White House wanted to double the hours of work--paid and unpaid--for poor single mothers, effectively ending their chances of getting better jobs through education and training. They wanted to do away with exemptions from this workload for mothers with small children and other significant barriers to employment, and make it even harder for them to obtain access during "work hours" to drug treatment, domestic violence counseling and other services that might help people become more employable--not to mention lead more tolerable lives. (The bill Hillary signed onto also contained these provisions.) They wanted to keep the ban on Medicaid for many legal immigrants. And, despite all the emphasis on work, they added next to nothing for childcare, stranding single mothers with young children in an impossible situation.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020722/conniff

AND THIS:

In 1996 she pressed her husband to veto two Republican welfare reform bills for being too punitive. She then helped persuade him to sign a slightly modified third version when she recognized that the public overwhelmingly favored welfare reform in an election year.

ON NAFTA:

At other times Hillary showed a willingness to yield. In the summer of 1993, she tried to sink the North American Free Trade Agreement, which the Bush administration had negotiated. Hillary opposed the treaty because she believed it would take jobs away from American workers. She also worried that a campaign for the treaty's passage could divert the nation's attention from her health-care-reform efforts. Yet she relented after Mickey Kantor, the Clinton administration's trade representative, described NAFTA's political advantages. "I said, 'If you want to drop NAFTA, we can kill it, but we shouldn't'," Kantor recalled. The treaty's ratification that November became the major bipartisan success of the first Clinton term.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/12/23/124323/36

MORE FROM 2002:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is drawing fire from her traditional liberal allies as a result of the position she has staked out in the debate over revamping the nation's welfare laws.

Scores of protesters displayed their anger outside her house here in the Embassy Row neighborhood today, unhappy with her decision to back President Bush's drive to enact new work requirements that they say will ultimately harm welfare recipients.

''Senator Clinton needs to understand that the stakes in this debate are very high and that she will be held accountable for her actions,'' said Deepak Bhargava, the executive director of the National Campaign for Jobs and Income Support, a coalition of advocacy groups representing low-income communities.

Mrs. Clinton, the New York Democrat, has joined a group of moderate and conservative Democratic senators in supporting a bill to increase the work requirement for welfare recipients to 37 hours a week, a significant increase over the current 30 hours. Mr. Bush would require 40 hours.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D03EFDE1038F931A15756C0A9649C8B63

Please recommend if Hillary's ending of AFDC upsets you or if you think you and your children yourselves might suffer someday in the UPCOMING DEPRESSION from the Clintons' ill-advised "give poor families less and then kick them off welfare reform"!

[Bitwit1234]

1. Isn't it so Damn odd that the Obama Hit Squad are constantly

bashing Hillary Clinton and saying she has no experience with her husband. That she did not advise or participate in any any any thing he did. That's so they can screw her over...BUT JUST LET THEM WANT TO pan something Bill Clinton's administration did or did not do that they want to try to get Obama's numbers to rise, they blame HILLARY FOR THAT. GEE WHAT A BUNCH OF ABSOLUTE ASSHATS AND SWIFTBOATERS. THEY SUCK. BIG TIME. Some like the bunch of republicans they are....

[Dems Will Win]

8. She had experience I say: Experience Being Hell on Wheels for Poor People

Between Ending AFDC and having NAFTA wreck the lives of millions, Bill and Hil have done as much if not more damage than the Republicans!

[LostinVA]

10. She was neither Senator nor President then

I don't try to have it both ways, although you and some other posters attempt this contortion. Make up your mind, and if you're saying she indeed has Cabinet-level experience, then also list the good things the Clinton Administration did.

[Dems Will Win]

12. Hillary was very involved

From 1996:

During that segment, Bill Clinton said he might have Hillary work on welfare reform during his second term, a suggestion that he may scale back welfare reform to please liberals. But instead of pursuing the possibility that his signature was nothing more than election-year positioning, in the next segment Walters asked him:

"Even your own aides, many of them, and advisers feel that the bill is too extreme. Two of your advisers recently quit. Under the new bill a 60 year old federal guarantee of aid to needy families will end. It's been estimated as many as a million children will go hungry. What are you going to do about that?"

AND THIS:

In 1996 she pressed her husband to veto two Republican welfare reform bills for being too punitive. She then helped persuade him to sign a slightly modified third version when she recognized that the public overwhelmingly favored welfare reform in an election year.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/12/23/124323/36

[gorekerrydreamticket]

28. She was co-President....n/m

[bobbolink]

77. Yup, Bill made a big deal of claiming he sought her advice on everything.

Can't have it both ways.

[bobbolink]

75. Are you saying she would reinstate welfare? Are you saying she will take care of the damage DONE

by her husband's action?

If she's so different, why is he campaigning for her?

Tell me what she is going to do for those of us who are homeless!

[jwirr]

97. She was not a Senator or the President at the time but from her own

words she did advise him on many issues, especially regarding women and children.

[papau]

19. number of poor people decreased every year between 1993 and 2000" -from the OP's post

[bobbolink]

76. No thanks to Bill!

It had to do with the economy, not because Clinton gave a shit about the people suffering.

[Leopolds Ghost]

102. Welfare Reform was in 1996. Those jobs were the Infotech service economy of full employment

Which collapsed after the bubble burst in late 2000-early 2001.

Last hired, first fired. No manufacturing sector, this was a
mass movement of people into the "trickle down" jobs predicted
by Reagan. Retail, call centers, big-box construction, trucking
to big-box centers, graphic design for advertising online and TV,
consulting to all the Internet millionaires and burgeoning gov't
contractors. And employing numerous poorly-paid clerks who were
formerly unemployed, thanks to sudden conditions of full employment.

Oh yeah, and most AFDC / public housing residents not only have
jobs, but more than one job allowing them to make poverty wages
for their (often fatherless) family.

For which they are demeaned and discredited as "single women"
in a recapitulation of old ideas about female behavior.

TANF ended 5 years ago for everyone who HAD a job when welfare
was signed in the first place and still NEEDED AFDC.

[Cha]

26. So hillary was against nafta

before she realized how politically expedient it would turn out for bill?

[indimuse]

33. you are wrong!!

HILLARY has done more for underprivileged children/ women ...troops..ETC...in her life time than your spoiled little cry baby obama could ever imagine...another thing...Why don't you ask Obama what his CHURCH MISSION STATEMENT is REALLY advocating...Christian my ass...:mad: I cal it racism AT BEST!!! http://www.tucc.org/about.htm

[superduperfarleft]

44. Racism? Are you kidding?

You're right, black people have no right to be proud of the heritage that was stripped from them by white slaveowners. And thank god they have a brave white person like yourself to remind them of this. /sarcasm

Get a clue.

[EFerrari]

70. Heaven forbid the black community empower the black community!

[bobbolink]

78. What has she done? What has she done about homelessness?

That's a big focus of the OP.... homelessness.

What has she done?

Is she going to see to it that I have a decent place to live?

Will she care that I'm sleeping in my car in the cold and snow?

[niceypoo]

39. Let me guess...

Hillary also invaded Kosovo, saved Bosnia, screwed Monica Lewinski and balanced the budget?

[clarence swinney]

47. Clinton

PRAISE CLINTON AND GORE  WITH PLEASURE
GDP--rose from 6,300 to 11,600
NATIONAL INCOME-5,000 to 8,000 Billion--
JOBS CREATED—237,000 per month to replace Jimmy Carter record
of 218,000.
AVERAGE WEEKLY EARNINGS--$360 to $478
AVERAGE WEEKLY HOURS WORKED--never hit 35.0--hit that mark 4
times in 80's
UNEMPLOYMENT--from 7.2% down down down to as low as 3.9%
MINIMUM WAGE--$4.25 to $5.15
MINORITIES--did exceedingly well
HOME OWNERSHIP--hit all time high (no big deal most can say
this-except Reagan)
DEFICIT--290 Billion to whoopee a SURPLUS
DEBT----+28%---300% increase over prior 12 years by
Conservatives.
FEDERAL SPENDING--+28%---+80% under Reagan- who is da true
conservative?
DOW JONES AVERAGE—3,500 to 11,720 top in 2000.  All it's
history to get to 3500 and Clinton zooms it 
NASDAQ--700 to 5,000 top in 2000.---All of it's history to get
to 700 and Clinton zooms it
VALUES INDEXES-- almost all bad went down--good went up in
zoom zoom zoom
FOREIGN AFFAIRS--Peace on Earth good will toward each
other---Mark of a true Christian--what has Bush done to Peace
on Earth?
POPULARITY---highest poll ratings in history during peacetime
in  AFRICA, ASIA AND EUROPE . Even 98.5% in Moscow--left
office with Highest Gallup rating since it was started in
1920's.
STAND UP FOR JUSTICE--evil conservatives spent $110,000,000 on
hearings and investigations and caught one very evil man who
took a few plane rides to events.
BOW YOUR HEADS—“Thank you God for sending us a man of Bill
Clinton's character, intelligence, knowledge of governance,
ability to face up to crises without whimpering and a great
leader of the world. Amen”.
THANK YOU GOD FOR THE GOOD TIMES THE CLINTON YEARS.
clarence swinney-political historian-Lifeaholics of America-
burlington nc
[e-mail]

[bobbolink]

79. Another muddleclass defense of Bill -- and ignorance of poor people.

[jwirr]

98. True but are you trying to say that all people were helped during

the Clinton years? Well here is one poor woman who is here to tell you otherwise. I have no home of my own and am living with my children. I am not an Obama supporter but I do like to see truth. Bill Clinton with the advise of his wife made some serious mistakes when it came to the poor.

[clarence swinney]

54. HILLARY POOR

Hillary has always been working for children and women.
She pushed programs for them in the White House.
Welfare Reform was well intentioned.
It flopped. It was terrific in a booming economy where
employers begged for workers.

Not so good in recession.

PURPOSE--put them to work to instill pride.

Only a poor person can know the desperation
they feel when they are unable to provide for kids. 

Safety Net is a must.

It breaks my heart each day as I go eat my great breakfast in
a nice restaurant and on the corner is a long line waiting to
get food from Loves and Fishes.
Wait in the rain. Wait in the Cold. Wait in the heat.

Five families in this city could solve the problem with pocket
change.

OH! I forgot. We are the Center of the Bible Belt. We are
Devout. We are Charitable. We do good. We are Christ-like.
We give to charity. Big amounts.Exactly the amount our
accountant tells us can be deducted from our taxes.

 

[bobbolink]

80. There was nothing "well-intentioned" about welfare deform. It was a cynical political move.

Read Bill's words on it... it was POLITICAL, and nothing else.

All the fancy words about "self-respect" are garbage.

It was for Bill's BENEFIT.

[clarence swinney]

55. Experience

Please list Bush experience to be a president of anything.

[aquart]

63. Bush is not under consideration here. He's irrelevant to the discussion.

[flashl]

2. The Government wrote into law and executed a disastrous Welfare Reform

without concern of suffering, homelessness, or loss of health care, in the same manner there is no concern about human suffering today. The difference is, these families have been suffering since the 90s.

[K Gardner]

18. I remember when this happened, being stunned that it came through a Democratic President.

The results were devastating then and continue to be today. Thank you for this invaluable summary of information.

[bobbolink]

85. Yet we poor folk are constantly reminded that the Dems are our "best hope"

No wonder the party has lost the votes of poor people!

Yet, they don't seem to give a rip.

Nor do they care about the suffering and death resulting from these disastrous "liberal" policies.

[jwirr]

99. I have been poor my entire 67 years under Democrats & pugs - I

will take a Dem anyday.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. Kicking

so more people can read this.

[Disturbed]

5. At the time this was touted as a good thing for America.

This cannot be blamed on Sen. Clinton. It can be debated if Pres. Clinton has responsibility for
the consequences of his actions regarding this situation.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. True enough

I was thinking more in terms of another thread where someone said that no Democratic President had done anything that hurt the people like the GOP is wont to do. Sorry I didn't make that clear.

What is Mrs. Clinton's position on helping poor families?

[Dems Will Win]

7. She can't have it both ways, touting her experience in the White House

and how good things were under "my husband's Administration" without taking reponsibility for Welfare Reform WHICH SHE HEAVILY TOUTED IN '96 AS A CLINTON SUCCESS MIND YOU.

Both the Welfare Debacle and the NAFTA Debacle can be laid squarely at the feet of both Clintons.

No getting around it. Maybe someone could find some Hil quotes on how great Welfare Reform will be.

[Leopolds Ghost]

11. She still touts ending Welfare as per OP. Most Hillary supporters OPPOSE welfare & public housing

So this thread will change exactly no one's mind about the issue.

They don't think Obama is "ready" for office and they don't think
"unreformed" (i.e. jobless) poor families are "ready" to receive benefits.

And poor families with jobs are blamed for not taking care of their kids.

Clintons and their allies are and always have been the most callous
professional-class, neoliberal Republicans.

And I said that when they were in office.

(A family friend who used to work as a public housing inspector asked me
for my opinion on the public housing demolition in New Orleans. He was
unsure about the issue. He didn't think there was a good solution that
preserved the existing housing. I told him how the replacement units
would be 30% "affordable" where "affordable" meant anything below the
average market rate for the surrounding area. And the occupants would
have to have credit -- with "credit counseling available for former
public housing tenants who want to be considered" for the limited slots.
He did a double take and said "see, that's why Bill Clinton is
considered the most successful Republican president in our lifetimes.")

[niceypoo]

40. Welfare needed reform

And I would much rather have a democrat do it than a republican

[Breeze54]

48. A stab with a knife is still a stab with a knife, no matter who does the stabbing.

[undergroundpanther]

128. and being stabbed

when you are down is painful and ethically evil.Not everyone can cope with the civilized life, not everyone wants to be abused or be used up, not everyone can take it long enough to make it.So what do these rich politicians like the Clinton's do,Stab us Stab stab stab,because they think but never dare speak, because it would be bad P.R...People on welfare/disability are to even the Clinton's, useless eaters.We are the poison containers to hold societies sickness from the sight of the well off,we are the failures of the system of compete for excess and success.We remind the comfortable of how tenuous thier comforts are when everyone lives under the ass of a bossman catering to the whims of those above who do not care..

We are all human beings .Some of us lack the inhuman ambitions,greed and callousness and cannot cope with the viciousness of this world and the insanity of the business world, and hack it's demands to 'succeed'.Welfare means poverty,the playing field is stacked against us,we cannot make ends meet. Some are not healthy or were are born in unfortunate circumstances, yet all are declared useless eaters. The Label useless eaters was invented by hateful and rich elites because we cannot produce what the WEALTHY want and give it to them on demand.

The wealthy dominator class IS the ultimate social parasite class.
That is the truth. The Tip top of the social/financial hierarchy ,the leisure class, are CRIMINALS playing like they are not. It is the wealthy and narcissistic individuals we are taught as children to look up to or obey who are the true rot at the center of civilization. The wealthy are robbing us all blind with unchecked shameless individual greed.

The welfare recipients are not the REAL thieves and parasites,here.. They are the walking wounded of this INHUMAN system. The ones on the dole are the failures of capitalism, the failure of self interest as a virtue and the parasite wealthy hate us because we remind them of what THEY are.The poor are the lights snuffed out by the ruthless ambitions and greed of countless other individuals who got theirs and will proceed to fuck everyone else's suffering if they don't like it tough either BE SOMEBODY or die...Abuse or be the abused.


It's the political families,the leisure class, the 'success' stories, the industriously greedy,all the WEALTHY and some of the comfortable middle class managers, paper pushers and bureaucrats too,all the big and some of the mid sized and small business Ceo's.. they collectively are the TRUE non productive parasite class that get away with robbing and ruling most of us.

Bite the hand that holds the carrot and the sticks to make you obey.For it is the boss mans greedy hands that are stealing your lives not lived,not the welfare recipients,sitting there suffering. Bashing the weak helps the strong bash YOU. .

The wealthy IMHO have no right to the spoils they take from us all if it means others will suffer poverty and pain so they can live in decadent luxury ,have security and an ease and freedom in their lives none of us at least here on DU will ever know..Because we are paying for it.Welfare recipients pay too in stress,sickness,despair,frustration, stigma,poverty,and futility as we get blamed for it because we can't find a way out or cope.

Bash the strong.
Help the weak.
Hate the wealthy for they are the true parasites feeding off us all..

[aquart]

64. Link to that ridiculous "most" statistic?

Made it up out of your own little head, didn't you?

[Leopolds Ghost]

101. Here on DU half of all replies on the NOLA housing threads are anti-public housing.

See also post #40 and numerous other posts in this thread defending
the Clinton plan.

It is not something one can attack Hillary Clinton with because it
will only rally her supporters (including middle class blacks and
whites who fled the inner city for better suburbs under the Clinton
economy and see nothing negative about the Clinton economy.)

Clinton moved the entire nation to the right by getting
the Democratic Party to embrace an economic agenda that
was to the right of Reagan's. This monumental concession --
really, a religious conversion away from the ideals of
social justice as understood in the 50s and 60s, which
the major candidates in Iowa view as discredited -- allowed
the Republicans to move even further right, dispensing
with the mainstream Republican business elite who found
themselves in agreement with the Clintons instead of Reagan.

[ecstatic]

125. I like the mixed-income communities concept but anti-housing of all the poor in one concentrated

area. The designers meant well, but that idea destroyed lives and communities. You might need to travel through Chicago and NY to get it though.

[bobbolink]

83. Yes, "Dems" who think it's funny that I'm sleeping in my car in the cold and snow.

Then wonder why I can't stand sHill, and why I have little use for "liberals" and Dems.

I wish they would trade places with me for one month!

Let them see just how glamorous it is to be one of the 3 million who need low-income housing that they want to eliminate.

Live in my car, sHill supporters!

Tell me then how much fun you're having!

Thanks, Leopold's Ghost! You're one of the few DUers who understands, and is willing to speak the truth about this shit!

[onenote]

103. not to be callous about it, but how long have you been sleeping in your car

cause your profile indicates that in around 18 months you've managed to post to DU over 6500 times.

[EFerrari]

34. A 'Formal' Welfare Role For Hillary?

A 'Formal' Welfare Role For Hillary?

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, Nov. 25) -- Just what is a "formal role" exactly?


First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton told TIME magazine in an interview this week that she wants such a role in the welfare debate. "I want to travel around and talk to people about what is happening on the ground," she said in TIME's Dec. 2 issue. "I intend to speak out about it and write about it." (Transcript of TIME Interview)

But White House press secretary Mike McCurry said he's not aware of any movement in that direction. He said President Bill Clinton "does expect her and other experts on child welfare to help him and help the administration successfully implement welfare reform," McCurry told CNN. "She has a formal role: she is the first lady of the United States of America."

President Clinton seemed to have surprised his wife and his staff in September on ABC's "20/20" when he said he'd like his wife to take an active role in improving the welfare law that he signed earlier this year. "That's the first I've heard of it," Mrs. Clinton said. "Sounds like an exciting..."

She was interrupted by the president, apparently suddenly mindful of the beating the first lady took in 1993 over health care reform. "It's not a formal role; it's not a formal role," he said. No more mention was made of the idea during the campaign.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/9611/25/2hillary.welfare/index.shtml

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

94. The Clintons seem to have been planning this run for a long time.

I can't focus on them, they are part of the problem.

I will not vote for her and I will not shut up about what their agenda.

I believe in the Democratic Party. I believe they are better than THIS.

[juajen]

104. In our town, we have housing for homeless women and children

Are there no shelters or homes for you where you live? Does the father of your children contribute anything? Don't misunderstand, please. I have a son who has been homeless. I do know something about living under bridges. He didn't have a vehicle. He also did not have any children.

I was concerned during the Clinton Administration when welfare reform was enacted, and felt it was not the right legislation. I'm not an expert, so do not know what could have been done that would have been an improvement. Did know personally about several young girls who had three and four children on purpose, just so they could collect welfare. Of course, they saw the father, or fathers, on the side. This was deplorable and, to some extent, still goes on today. Women need help to rise above poverty, counseling to help them understand their insecurities, and, most important, they need child care so they can work and get out of the system. The most important thing a society can do is provide proper birth control and morning after pills. No woman should have a baby because they are afraid of existing without federal and state help. Of course, having that help available is necessary, but, only as a stop gap measure.

Welfare reform had to happen. Adjustments should and could be made, however. Exceptions are always the rule.
If you think dems are hard on women w/dependent children and the homeless, you have seen nothing like the indifference that pugs give to this problem. Of course, in addition, they do not believe in abortion. They do not believe in helping these young mothers after they give birth, either.

I have a neighbor who gets aid for her child, who was born without benefit of marriage. She is over 22 years of age and medicaid paid for her baby, WIC paid for her prenatal care and special food before and after baby was born, even though there was certainly enough family money to pay for the baby and her care. She lives in Section 8 housing, etc. She even got pregnant with another child and would not marry the father because she might lose her college financial aid. People still work the system, even with reform that was enacted.

[clarence swinney]

52. NAFTA

Precursor of China.

Canada? Where is the Gripe?

MEXICO--Nafta  was well intentioned with unintended
consequences

You fail to recall it was good for us until PESO TANKED.

NAFTA is not IMMIGRATION.

Yes! Jobs have gone and are going to Mexico.

Mexicans come here to get money for families.Nafta or no
Nafta. It is a poor nation. People want a good life.

Corporations go there to make money for Ultra Rich Investors.

There is no quick easy solution.

Influx of immigrants before Nafta.
400,000 per year quota.
Reagan amnesty to over 3 million.
After 5 years could bring in immediate family.
In 1990-- 1,500,000 came in.
Bush sr increased quota from 500,000 to 700,000.

Everyone looks for a Scapegoat. Nafta is not the biggie. China
big.India big.

It has just begun.So panic.It will get worse. $$$$$$$$$ = Rich

give me more give me more I am not rich enough.

[fudge stripe cookays]

73. Don't forget media deregulation..

which gave us the double nightmares of behemoths Fox News and Clear Channel.

[bobbolink]

86. DEBATED???????

WHO is responsible, then???

I suppose you're find a way to make * responsible for the suffering and deaths of this HORRIBLE CLINTON move, right?

GODDAMN!

:nuke:

[Hoof Hearted]

4. But I thought her experience in the White House was irrelevant?

Isn't that what we've been told? All she did was have tea, right? So which is it?

[Leopolds Ghost]

13. So what is her record? What is she running on?

[bobbolink]

90. "Vote for me because I'm a woman"--that's what she's running on.

[Dems Will Win]

14. I added to the OP her lurch to the right on the 2002 welfare bill

Also despicable. Let me know what you think of her after that then.

As predicted in '96, a million ended up on the street and that forecast was too low by a large factor!

It's millions now, between NAFTA WTO and the end of AFDC...

[mzmolly]

95. Well now that depends. If we want to shit upon Bill Clinton's record

she was pulling the strings. If he accomplished anything, the 'b*tch' was servin' tea.

[LostinVA]

9. I keep forgetting that HRC was President already

Oh wait...

[Kurovski]

15. Kick. (nt)

[scarletwoman]

16. Here'a recommend and a kick. (nt)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. "Triangulation" at it's ugliest. K&R

[silverojo]

20. Thank you SO MUCH for this!

Bill Clinton's welfare DE-form has pissed me off since its inception. That was even before I myself fell victim to it!

Here are some little-known facts about Clinton's destruction of the safety net:

1) People with no dependent children cannot get welfare or food stamps, PERIOD. I know from personal experience, because when I was unable to work, I thought I'd be able to go on welfare until my disability claim was settled. Boy, was I in for a shock!

2) The only way you can get assistance--and it's TEMPORARY--is if you're applying for disability. No food stamps, though, just "general assistance". In my state, that totaled a mere $173 per month! And we're only allowed to get GA for a year and a half. ONCE IT'S EXPIRED, YOU GET NO MONEY, UNLESS AND UNTIL YOU GET ON DISABILITY.

And we all know how "easy" THAT is. :grr:

The only thing saving me from life on the streets was that I had family members willing to let me live with them.

My personal experiences, and the reasons listed in the OP, are why I loathe Hillary Clinton and the husband whose coattails she rode in on. Kicking the poor and disabled when they're down isn't decent OR Democratic.

I want Edwards to win the primary, but if he can't, then I'll support Obama--America does NOT need another Clinton who will balance the budget by taking food out of poor people's mouths.

[Dems Will Win]

21. Thanks for this!

[Lugnut]

29. Exactly.

Thank you for detailing the effects of this nonsense.

K&R

[bobbolink]

93. Beautifully put! Yet, your suffering and mine doesn't seem to matter to so many "liberals"

It hurts to be so invisible!

I'm sorry for that you went through, for what I'm going through, and the suffering of some other DUers who are also on the bottom rung.

[undergroundpanther]

107. Hi Bobbolink

Good to see yer back online!!I missed you, Loved the posstcard and the info...you sent. All is ok? or at least survivable? I was worried about you.

:loveya:

[Greyhound]

22. While I'm certainly no fan of Hillery's, I don't think she should get the blame or

credit for what her two-faced husband did.

The fact that she voted with the idiot frat boy on making this draconian abomination is disturbing but nothing out of character fro her. She is an elitist of the worst sort and, should she get the nomination will be a disaster for the nation.

Still, the Clinton-Gore anti-people, pro-corporate agenda should not be held against her.

[Stephanie]

46. She's claiming credit for everything he did, she has to take her lumps too.

I know she likes to have it both ways, whatever the question, but it just won't fly.

[aquart]

65. Now Gore is "anti-people"?

Lordy, you folks are funny.

[UTUSN]

23. AFDC *ended*?!1 Not even Shrub has been able to do that!1 & the CLINTONs *did* it?!1 n/t

[aquart]

67. Ask for the link.

[proud2BlibKansan]

24. I supported welfare reform at the time; I still do

I teach the children of the poor. I watched as generation after generation went nowhere, just sat at home and waited for the check to come every month. How can you inspire a kid to get an education and go somewhere in life when his role models at home do NOTHING? I had more than a few kids tell me they were just going to drop out of school at age 16 because their mom, dad, grandma, brother, cousin, etc never graduated from high school and they didn't need to, they were doing just fine.

Making these mothers go to work had a wonderful effect. It gave them pride. I can't even remember how many of them came to school and bragged about their job or the education they were getting. And they wanted their children to be educated too.

The problem is the safety net isn't strong enough. These families need more than 5 years of TANF. They need more in food stamps, more affordable housing. More job training. More help with child care. Affordable health care.

But I will defend welfare reform and think it is one of the bravest things Bill Clinton did as president. After seeing so many poor just sit, with no desire to do anything but wait for a welfare check every month, this is far far better. For them and for their children.

[Breeze54]

42. You've obviously never been poor....

If you think this was "the best thing for them" :puke:

:grr:

[Enrique]

50. I worked with a group of women who were affected by welfare reform

they were all enthusiastic in saying it was good for them.

Of course that's anecdotal, as is your report, but there it is for what it's worth. I posted a separate thread about Obama's authoring legislation in IL to do a formal study of the effects.

[bobbolink]

81. How many of those children have died because of the deform you are so pleased with?

Do you even know?

Do you care?

[paulk]

114. do YOU even know?

let's have some stats to back up your hatefulness with.

and why don't you answer that question upthread ... 6,500 posts in 18 months while living in your car?

[Elidor]

25. Wow. I still had one illusion left about Hillary

It's gone now. I would add that Bill should get the credit for his own fuckups, which that certainly was, but she's cast from the same mold. Political expedience is a lousy policy guide, but she follows it faithfully.

[EFerrari]

27. K&R. The tiny bit of money this saved the budget

caused misery for the very poor.

[Yuugal]

30. Welfare reform, man that was a low point.

"Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) was established by the Social Security Act of 1935 as a grant program to enable states to provide cash welfare payments for needy children who had been deprived of parental support or care because their father or mother was absent from the home, incapacitated, deceased, or unemployed."

That sentence is a thing of beauty because it should be what we are all about as Americans and humans. Even a scummy corporate cockroach should be able to see the sense in making sure the household is provided for so the kids can grow up healthy and pay taxes all their life. How does "the richest country in the world" fuck this up so bad?

The icing on this cake of selfish stupidity was to demand the remaining parent clean toilets at IHOP for 8 hrs a day or the kids will starve, when that mother or father is already desperately needed at home. Gotta love the 5 yr limit too because we all know kids should be out working by age 5. Welfare reform was nothing but punishment for being poor.

I'm still looking for a list of the things the Clinton's actually did that helped anyone. Not a list of economic data, a real list of things Bill actually got done that helped the little people. He sure got this turd done and NAFTA too. Shame on them all and shame on me for ever believing their DLC bullshit and voting for them.

Never again.

[Dems Will Win]

31. Thanks

[WinkyDink]

32. "The Clintons'..."? I think I need to take another look at Pat Nixon and Laura the Librarian!

[lumberjack_jeff]

53. No kidding. I'm no fan of Hillary...

... but her use of her first lady experience is as objectionable to me as is her detractors use of Bill's policies as a cudgel to beat up on her.

There are two Clintons. One was President, the other was Senator. The senator needs to run for president on her experience as Senator, and her opponents should oppose her on the same basis.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

35. NAFTA = "major bipartisan success of the first Clinton term" = corporate sellout.

[aquart]

66. "Bi-Partisan"? Is that the thing that Obama wants?

[happygoluckytoyou]

36. ANY REASON HILLARY AND "GOP LITE" ARE SO OFTEN IN THE SAME SENTENCE

[Orwellian_Ghost]

37. K&R

I really don't know how anyone who considers themselves progressive or liberal can rationalize their support of Clinton.

It takes a Pillage?

[TriMetFan]

38. I got a question?

Why show a picture of a African American child, when it was shown back in the late 80's that whites were the ones on welfare the most?:shrug: Also why don't these people go and take the jobs that the illegal immigrants have? Hell they could drag their kids down to the farms and live in the housing the illegal immigrants use.

[Zodiak]

43. Good question

I suppose that it is because "welfare" became a codeword for African-Americans many years ago, and I'm sure that the racist undertones of the word were responsible, in part, for the ease of getting "welfare reform".

The picture is probably a reflection of the editor's mental programming on the issue.

[Dems Will Win]

58. actually I looked for 20 minutes for a white poverty photo

but all I could find were the old Depression photos...

My mental programming is clean...

[Zodiak]

72. sorry, thought the picture was from the article

And the fact that you could not a single picture speaks volumes, especially since we know the statistics say otherwise. As long as it is the dark people suffering, many in America could give a rat's ass. Which is why they don't give a rat's ass about the poor.

[TriMetFan]

116. BINGO!

[AzDar]

41. NO more Clintons. NO more Bushes...No more taking it in our tushes!

:patriot:

[mdmc]

45. Corporations uber alles!

No ceo went hungry due to welfare reform.

[Hamlette]

49. Complete and utter BS. Welfare reform had NOTHING to do with homelessness AND

pinning the blame on Hillary, let alone Bill, is complete and utter BS.

I've worked in welfare for over 10 years. Welfare reform was/is not the problem.

If you want to find the problem, ask those of us who know the law inside and out and work with it every day.

It was reauth that was the problem. The original PRWORA (welfare reform) was a good idea and for the most part worked.

I'd explain how and why but it is obvious you have no intention of listening to the facts.

[aquart]

68. But you can't "reform" welfare if THERE ARE NO JOBS.

Also, way too many of the companies offering training and placement are scams. The privatization of welfare is a genuine problem. Welfare recipients are cash cows to too many companies which have sprung up to bid for the training and placement money.

Not to mention the people who could work but can't be hired because of medical insurance issues. Has anyone done a study of how many people are forced onto welfare for medical protection?

[Madam Mossfern]

120. Bingo!

From one in the trenches. Don't think that TANF clients don't understand the corruption of the system. They may be poor, but they're not stupid. Those companies that bid successfully for the training contracts for welfare soemhow end up sending their profits to coffers of politicians. There are many ways to launder it...as most of you know.

The system is totally broken as we force some to be in training classes that others 'want' to be in. There is frustration on the part of the trainers because the classroom is disrupted by those who don't want to be there- gossiping, talking on cell phones threatening others, walking around and trash talking the instructors who in many cases aren't qualified to teach the classes.

The childcare is also a joke as many parents put their children in child care situations where the kid is basically put in fron to f a TV.

The system needs a total overhaul. BTW right now we are working on keeping our 'participation rate' up so the funding won't be cut.

When clients find jobs they are usually part time at minimum wage.

[Hamlette]

132. there are jobs

we've got a very low unemployment rate right now.

If states are getting scammed by training and placement companies those states are not monitoring. The majority of our training funds come through WIA (the "new" JTPA). That program is more difficult to monitor but it probably won't last long either. Lots of rumors it will be done away with or reworked.

States that tried privatization of welfare are going back to merit positions. There is really no profitable way to privatize "welfare" because most states integrate and people who administer food stamps have to be merit employees. Wisconsin did a lot of privatization, as did Texas but both states have pulled way back in recent years.

One thing welfare did not do away with is reporting requirements. In the first few years those companies that tried to make money off the system couldn't meet the requirements of the program and were dropped.

I don't know how many people go on to welfare because of medical insurance, a bigger issue is child care. Clinton said he would not sign the first few attempts at a bill for welfare reform because there was not enough money for child care or medicaid. The bill that was passed did increase subsidies for child care and the requirements for medicaid, especially for children, were reduced.

The average length of time a household is on cash welfare is about 18 months. If they can't work, they get support for as long as they need it.

[MethuenProgressive]

51. Bill Clinton's not running.

:shrug:

[NorthernSpy]

56. sending the good industrial jobs overseas + telling people to work their way out of poverty...

... = FAILURE.


I've NEVER been a fan of the Clintons. And shit like this why.

[TankLV]

57. Psst: It was the REPUKE's baby - Clinton did his best to try to limit the damages the repukes would

have otherwise insisted on...

Just like "don't ask/don't tell" - it was a REPUKE idea that Dems and Clinton in particular did a lot to minimize the damage the repukes really wanted to wreak...

but don't let the pesky TRUTH get in the way a a good chance to denegrate the Clintons...

[aquart]

69. Truth isn't a necessity to Obama supporters.

They embrace distortion with a fervor we find so familiar after the last seven years.

[KillCapitalism]

59. K&R!

This plus trade agreements like NAFTA really hurt the poor.

[davsand]

60. Children's SSI got raped by that same welfare reform.

Close to one THIRD of kids in Illinois who were receiving SSI benefits were terminated without notice as part of that reform. When they appealed with a lawyer, the majority were restored but the problem was that those families were already poor, and affording a lawyer was a huge problem for many.

You may wonder why I even bring this up, so I'll tell you. I worked for a statewide agency that did intake and referral to volunteer legal service for those kids terminated from SSI benefits.

Literally, I talked to a mother who had a kid with some sort of seizure disorder that was so severe they had a permanent shunt into the kid's brain to deliver anti-seizure meds--and that child was ruled to be not disabled enough for SSI. Similarly, I talked to parents of kids on freaking VENTILATORS who were told this kids were not considered "disabled" as a result of that welfare reform. I heard horror stories EVERY DAY for a long time and I still cry when I remember some of it.

HOW can anyone accept this sort of crap? How can anyone accept that parents of these kids were placed in a position where many could not work outside the home because they couldn't afford to pay for the special care those kids need to stay alive? How can anyone accept the idea that those families who had disabled kids were placed in crisis because some bean counter in an office someplace judged a kid to be somehow unworthy of help?

That was a "bi-partisan" welfare reform. BOTH parties screwed poor people. It makes me angry to this day.



Laura

[Dems Will Win]

61. The American people truly are sheeple

We at DU are here to wake them up -- thanks for this!

[bobbolink]

84. Not just children--adults were left without, also.

Expected to be air plants.

Hurrah for the Dems...

:mad:

[undergroundpanther]

91. This is because

certain selfish, psychopathic rich people who present one face to their own kind and another face to the people still exist in our government.They did in the past and quite possibly will the future.Bottom line is,certain segments of"leaders" consider themselves elite and they want to KILL off these disabled kids because they don't see these kids as human beings.They are really by proxy, murderers, their weapon is by either withholding and simultaneously pillaging the government purse,in other words by abusing the power we give to them,and OUR tax money..

[dysfunctional press]

62. people need to realize that the clintons aren't actually Democrats...

they are republican-lite corporocrats.

when you take two steps to the right for every one step to the left, you ultimately end up just as far to the right as if you never took any steps to the left at all- it just takes you a little longer to get there...

[Tom Joad]

71. Hillary is the ultimate welfare queen. Living off corporate handouts

[bobbolink]

74. Bill's only regret is that he didn't end welfare sooner. That's compassion for ya.

They cared so much about the people affected that they didn't even bother to track them.

NOBODY knows how many people died because of Bill's action.

NOBODY thinks about the suffering.

Out of sight, out of mind.

Thanks, Dems.

[SlowDownFast]

82. K&R.

[undergroundpanther]

87. Like I said before the CLINTONS HATE THE POOR

And they LIE they say one thing but their polices show what cruel people they really are.Never trust the lifelong rich to tell the poor what they need or don't.

[Freddie Stubbs]

117. Because keeping people on welfare permanatly truely helps them

[undergroundpanther]

127. Being on disability has helped me

Because I cannot deal with stress and all the shit anymore, The office politics,mind games and all that pointless hierarchical bullshit drives me crazy enough.Add on top of that this depending upon some asshole who does not give as shit about me as a person, only caring about what I can do for him,who can fire me for any old reason including just because he can, is too much like the horrible abusive situation I grew up in and I cannot go there again..Work scares the shit out of me because businesses are psychopaths in the way they treat human beings,I hate them...I'd rather live below the poverty line and hold onto what little sanity I have left, than work at a job I hate dominated by a boss that hates me or doesn't give a shit whether I die tomorrow .The thought of it I get so triggered.Honestly if I worked I fear in short order I may very well become one of those disgruntled employees sick of holding in all the bullshit,coming in one day armed to the teeth to kick ass and all out of bubblegum..I already hate this world. I hate life.It does not take much more shit for me to hate this world, or my life I never asked for,even more.

[ecstatic]

88. Welfare reform helped millions move up to the next level

I'm glad it was reformed. Was that picture a part of any of the articles you cited???

[undergroundpanther]

96. Do you understand why

Welfare exists?

Place one hundred men on an island from which there is no escape, and whether you make one of these men the absolute owner of the other ninety-nine, or the absolute owner of the soil of the island, will make no difference either to him or to them. In the one case, as the other, the one will be the absolute master of the ninety-nine — his power extending even to life and death, for simply to refuse them permission to live upon the island would be to force them into the sea.

Upon a larger scale, and through more complex relations, the same cause must operate in the same way and to the same end — the ultimate result, the enslavement of laborers, becoming apparent just as the pressure increases which compels them to live on and from land which is treated as the exclusive property of others ..
Greed and thievery by the owner or rich class causes much poverty.The greedy create the needy.



http://www.g-r-e-e-d.com/

Welfare exists because capitalism is a FAILURE.To ignore the greedy wealthy and thieves and to look to that as like a "success"... You are ignoring how the rich create and need the poor to stay rich. So ,poverty is required for the survival of the type of money/exploitation system we have currently.It is easy to hate the poor because our culture is not charitable and easy blame the individual poor person for their"unfortunate circumstances" and "not making it" and ignore the system and the rich living so well off of all our backs.Until you get it that this system requires alot of not making it,and alot of abused people so a few can have it all you won't understand.Our capitalistic system is basically financial abuse,wage slavery.This comes from a cultural tolerance and acceptance of INEQUALITY.The real question is...Is another person more worthy of the fruits of life and civilization than you? Less worthy? By who's standards? Ask that question before you go saying welfare reform was"good". Than you must get the thieves OUT of finance government and all sectors of civilized life and take away their power.Forever.
Poverty is maintained because of a few who are permitted to own too much and are not required by the culture at large to not share the excesses of it freely with others.
http://www.whiteband.org/
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/july-0707/ending-poverty-but-only-on-paper
http://www.ssa.gov/history/epic.html

[Whisp]

106. excellent post, underground.

this is what lies at the bottom of all this needless misery and inequality. It's intentional - the fat bastards NEED it to be this way.

I curse Clinton for his 'reform' which ultimately ended up reforming the trough to a wider size to the top elite, taken from the weakest among us. May they rot in hell, all those comfortably and snuggly smuggly sitting on the backs of these heinous crimes against humanity.

and it sickens me to see so many here, supposed 'progressives' that think this is just a game of some sort - a huge ugly sports dome game where your team just has to win no matter how they cheat and lie. cuz it's the american way, you gotta back a Winner! :puke:

roger and out in total disgust.

[undergroundpanther]

134. It's only a game for the fortunate

That game is suffering for those who live under it's oppressive domination.

[mzmolly]

92. Interesting that homeless numbers under Republican control are now Hillary Clinton's fault.

Huh? :eyes:

Bill Clinton oversaw the lowest poverty rate in decades. Apparently we can credit Hillary, now?

http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/families.html

Economy: the Strongest Economy in a Generation

Closing the Book on A Generation of Deficits -- in 1992, the deficit was $290 billion, a record dollar high. In 1999, we had a budget surplus of $124 billion -- the largest dollar surplus on record (even after adjusting for inflation) and the largest as a share of our economy since 1951. With the President's plan, we are now on track to eliminate the nation's publicly held debt by 2015.

More than 20 Million New Jobs -- more than 92 percent (18.5 million) of the new jobs have been created in the private sector, the highest percentage in 50 years. This is the most jobs ever created under a single Administration -- and more new jobs than Presidents Reagan and Bush created during their three terms. Under President Clinton, the economy has added an average of 244,000 jobs per month, the highest of any President on record. This compares to 52,000 per month under President Bush and 167,000 per month under President Reagan.

Fastest and Longest Real Wage Growth in Two Decades -- Since 1993, real wages have grown 6.5 percent -- compared to declining 4.3 percent during the previous two administrations. In 1998, real wages were up 2.7 percent -- that's the fastest annual real wage growth in over 20 years.

Unemployment Is the Lowest in 29 Years -- down from 7.5 percent in 1992 to 4.1 percent today -- staying below 5 percent for 29 months in a row.

Highest Homeownership Rate in History -- In the third quarter 1999, the homeownership rate was 67.0 -- the highest ever recorded.

....

Families and Communities: Strengthening America’s Working Families

$500 Per-Child Tax Credit -- 27 million families with 45 million children are receiving the $500 per-child tax credit.

Tax Cuts for Working Families -- 15 million working families receive additional tax relief through the President’s expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit. In 1998, the EITC lifted 4.3 million people out of poverty – double the number lifted out of poverty by the EITC in 1993.

Protecting Families -- Family and Medical Leave allows workers to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for seriously ill family members, new born or adoptive children, or their own serious health problems without fear of losing their jobs. Nearly 91 million workers (71% of the labor force) are covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act and millions of workers have already benefited from FMLA since its enactment.

Largest Five-Year Drop in Child Poverty Rate Since the ‘60s -- Under President Clinton, child poverty has declined from 22.7 percent to 18.9 percent -- the biggest five-year drop in nearly 30 years.

Increased the Minimum Wage from $4.25 to $5.15 per hour -- increasing wages for 10 million workers.

Enacted the Workforce Investment Act -- reforming the nation’s employment and training system by empowering individuals, streamlining services, enhancing accountability and increasing flexibility.

Passed the Landmark Work Incentives Improvement Act -- allowing people with disabilities to maintain their Medicare or Medicaid coverage when they go to work. It also includes a $250 million demonstration, which the President insisted on fully funding, that allows people with disabilities who are still working and are not yet sufficiently disabled to qualify for Medicaid to buy into the program. The President had advocated for passage of this bipartisan bill since 1998.

Signed the Landmark Adoption and Safe Families Act – 36,000 foster care children were adopted in fiscal year 1998, up from 28,000 in 1996. This is the first significant increase in adoption since the national foster care program was established nearly 20 years ago.

Enacted the Foster Care Independence Act -- ensuring that young people leaving foster care will get the tools they need to make the most of their lives by providing them better educational opportunities, access to health care, training, housing assistance, counseling, and other services.

Putting Families First -- put in place first-ever plan to protect our children from tobacco. Required the installation of V-chips in all new televisions. Encouraged schools to adopt school uniform policies to deter school violence and promote discipline. Produced guidelines on religious expression in public schools.

Supporting Community Service -- In just five years, AmeriCorps has allowed 150,000 young people to serve in their communities while earning money for college or skills training.

Building One America -- established the President’s Initiative on Race to lead the nation towards becoming One America in the 21st Century. In FY99 budget, won first real increase in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in several years.

[Dems Will Win]

100. Um hello! The ending of AFDC and the poor families getting kicked of TANF after FIVE YEARS

began happening several years after the act itself. But the Clintons set it all in motion.

So yes they get the credit for the economic bubble around the dot.com craze (not really) but they also get the blame for the welfare phase out after five years they passed in the 90s - and if you look again it was Hillary who passed an even stricter version when she was in the Senate in 2002.

Double down on dem poor people...

[undergroundpanther]

105. Yep

Make them so desperate and poor they sell their labor and lives for nearly nothing.It works in poor countries beholden to bfee why not import this kind of exploitation here!
:sarcasm:

[Disturbed]

108. amlette , I am interested in reading facts. Please present yours.

Thanks.

[mzmolly]

111. I've got news for you. - People on 'welfare' ARE IN POVERTY.

AFDC does not lift people above the poverty line. Clinton's policies did. Further the legislation you condemn Clinton for was put in place more than a decade ago. Clinton looked a the big picture. He helped people work and thus get OUT OF POVERTY by providing aid beyond a few hundred dollar monthly check and some food stamps. He actually gave MORE money to single parents by providing daycare benefits than they would have recieved from a monthly AFDC check. He had a complete package designed to encourage and help people get out of poverty by listening to the needs of poor families.



Further, per WIKI - The consequences of welfare reform have been dramatic. As expected, welfare rolls (the number of people receiving payments) dropped significantly (57%) in the years since passage of the bill. Substantially larger declines in welfare rolls were posted by many states, and even big city-dominated Illinois achieved an 86% reduction in welfare recipients. Child poverty rates for African American families have dropped the sharpest since statistics began to be tallied in the 1960s;

---

The broader context in which TANF was implemented

Near full-employment economy.
Large expansion of earned income tax credit in 1990 and 1993.
Minimum wage increases in 1996 and 1997.
Tripling of childcare spending – increasing from $4 billion in 1997 to $11.9 billion in 2004.
Work supports – including transport and work expenses – expanded, though available less widely than childcare.
Expansions of Medicaid and the State Children’s Health
Insurance Programme in the late 1980s and 1990s.
Stronger child support enforcement – up from 20 per cent receiving any in 1996 to 51 per cent by 2004 (an 82 per cent increase in collections).
More money to states through TANF.
Since 1996 federal funding of in-work support has increased. Essentially, resources have been switched from social assistance benefits to support for low-income working families. See, for example spending increases in Wisconsin under the block grants.

...

According to the official US definition, 17.6 per cent of children under 18 were below the official poverty line in 2005, nearly 13 million – up from 16 per cent in 2001.11 And the child poverty rate for children in female-headed households was 39 per cent. More than half of all poor children live in these lone-mother households.12 Even by comparing trends in absolute poverty, the US results do not compare well (see Figure 2).

According to the US poverty measure, in 1993, 22.7 per cent of children were poor. The same year, child poverty rates began to fall and reached 16.2 per cent by 2000. By 2004, the rate was 17.8 per cent, with an extra 1.4 million poor children since 2000.

Clinton's policies lowered poverty, Bush's have increased poverty.

http://www.cpag.org.uk/info/briefings_policy/Work_Over_Wefare/wow_1.htm



Clinton was revered by the poor for a reason, he made a positive difference.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

109. Hillary was NOT in charge in the Oval Office NOR the Rethug Congress at the time

[Enrique]

110. I wonder why Obama isn't making this a campaign issue?

Obama is obviously not shy about criticizing Clinton.

This other thread I started shows that he has been interested and involved in the issue since his days in the IL legislature:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2561517&mesg_id=2561517


So, I wonder why he is not criticizing Clinton's support of welfare reform?

My guess is that his interest in the issue is real, and that his approach is pragmatic in solving the problem rather than using it as a hammer against his political opponents.

[enid602]

112. politics aside

Politics aside, there was one caption from the article that really gets to me: "In fact, the median wage needed to afford a two-bedroom apartment is more than twice the
minimum wage." We're doomed.

[BlueJac]

113. Hillary supporters..........

Get so damn mad when they get it in their face. Bill Clinton was the best Republican president in the last 27 years. His fucking NAFTA cost me my good paying job of 25 years. I will NEVER vote for another Clintonesta again. Time for a progressive, and please don't lower yourself and say Hillary is progressive, because she is so stinking down the middle of the road and more of the same old politics.

[Freddie Stubbs]

115. Welfare should be a steppingstone, not a way of life

A child who grows up only knowing welfare will be more likely to fall into the same lifestyle.

[Dems Will Win]

119. Hope you end up on TANF, become homeless and THEN get kicked off all cash payments

after 5 years in the upcoming Depression. Maybe then you would change your mind...

[Freddie Stubbs]

131. There is currently no depression. If you can't find work after five years

you obviously need to get your act in gear.

[mdmc]

136. I know many that can't work

but they end up getting ssi.

Tommy Thompson reformed welfare the right way in WI (caseworkers ensured people were not abusing the system). The Big Dog just threw everyone under the corporate bus.

[Madam Mossfern]

121. Sadly so.

I see it every day. I don't disagree with the intention of welfare reform. The implementation is what sucks. Clients have access to training for good jobs, there is childcare provided, there is transportation money provided and career counselling.

I have too often had three generations of welfare moms sitting in my cube. There is something wrong with that. One tends to become a bit more callous when one works in the field. There are those who genuinely want to get off the system that treats them like prisoners on parole, and then there are those who are content to do nothing but receive their $322 per month. How does a person live on that?

Somehow I think the nature of the welfare population differs between rural and urban areas.

[undergroundpanther]

130. because the alternative is worse to them

You might not ever understand it.

But working for a boss in a cage called wage slavery? A job kills some people from the inside out faster than poverty does.
Some people are community people, not empire worker bees. And to make them work like bees for close to the same amount they get on welfare, is well a raw deal. It becomes a raw deal when you add in the rise in income and standard of living,and the cost of maintaining it.That trap of "a better life" would destroy what small bit of freedom and life they have left inside.The lie of a better life,has led many desperate people without a community around them,into slavery.
http://www.william-mac.com/thisweekintime/better-life-us-sex-slavery/.htm


What's better dirt poor but free,realizing there are massive barriers and choosing to not play that game...

Or to be or marginally comfortable but locked in a financial cage beholden to the whims of a boss in a company in a society that still does not care if you live or die?

Industrial society, like no other, is a society of human beings, a society which is obsessed with work, and yet the result of its work is but trivia and destruction. Now it even risks running out of work, and what then?
For me industrialization is not a result of human strength but of human weakness. It is that moment when responsible people forget what the place of things has to be. It is that moment in history when a minor part of all human activities begins to exceed the limits of its role; when the part becomes the whole. In that role, industry has become the enemy of individual human beings as well as of entire cultures.
http://zakuski.utsa.edu/krier/industrial.html


Break the silence, end the isolation, change the story
We humans live by stories. The key to making a choice for Earth Community is recognizing that the foundation of Empire’s power does not lie in its instruments of physical violence. It lies in Empire’s ability to control the stories by which we define ourselves and our possibilities in order to perpetuate the myths on which the legitimacy of the dominator relations of Empire depend. To change the human future, we must change our defining stories

THE IMPERIAL PROSPERITY STORY says that an eternally growing economy benefits everyone. To grow the economy, we need wealthy people who can invest in enterprises that create jobs. Thus, we must support the wealthy by cutting their taxes and eliminating regulations that create barriers to accumulating wealth. We must also eliminate welfare programs in order to teach the poor the value of working hard at whatever wages the market offers.

THE IMPERIAL SECURITY STORY tells of a dangerous world, filled with criminals, terrorists, and enemies. The only way to insure our safety is through major expenditures on the military and the police to maintain order by physical force.

THE IMPERIAL MEANING STORY reinforces the other two, featuring a God who rewards righteousness with wealth and power and mandates that they rule over the poor who justly suffer divine punishment for their sins.

These stories all serve to alienate us from the community of life and deny the positive potentials of our nature, while affirming the legitimacy of economic inequality, the use of physical force to maintain imperial order, and the special righteousness of those in power.
http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=1463

I accept my SSI check because if I was to be more involved with empire and collaborated with it,I would lose what small sanity I have, If I was to succeed I would not be any happier,I'd have more stuff but no more happiness.
Lastly if I work I would have to be beholden to a boss who could fire me for any reason including just because he can,a little dominator cog in a domination machine a company which is a big cog in the domination game which is called the traumatic relation to empire.

I do not want to live in an empire.I want the empire to die and along with it all the people contented and who profit by it's cancerous overgrowth .

Every human spirit cries out, "Does anybody love me? Am I significant to anyone?" And to become significant to someone we need EACH OTHER.I want to live in a community. The empire wants to DENY me that community,the state actively tries to interfere and destroy relations in community. I want an asshole free zone.A place of no more pointless production and over growth for rich people's parasiting profit imperatives. I want a community of friends that sustains itself by being,and relating together.An Earth community.

I know I can't live how the successful live in this empire ,the cost of 'success' as empire demands is beyond my ability to give,not just physically or emotionally etc, but ethically too. I will not crush myself even more than I have already been crushed just to collaborate with this idiotic hierarchical un-free system of domination hell bent on breaking all human and animal souls apart with needless trauma and abuses..that serve not higher human consciousness but only to sustain this insane system of community destruction, planetary heart and soul murder. I'd rather be poor and free, than middle class and be dominated until I become more tormented,harassed,compromised, angry and in denial about it all until I explode. And get innocent blood upon my hands.

I just can't do it.

Work is the source of nearly all the misery in the world. Almost any evil you'd care to name comes from working or from living in a world designed for work. In order to stop suffering, we have to stop working.
http://www.whywork.org/rethinking/whywork/abolition.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_200608/ai_n16634766
We have to stop working for a bully,MASTER a Dominator,a system of profits most of those working the most will never see.
http://www.bullyonline.org/
http://www.nspco.org.uk/

We need to stop working,and learn to share with each other,share stories,relate, live, and love again.

[bread_and_roses]

118. My favorite posts above: classic "Liberal" 'they should'/'make them work'/'instill pride'

Closely followed by the "I work in welfare and saw the sudden pride instilled/go to work/value education." Oh, yes, those poor stupid poor people who needed welfare "reform" and "Liberal" policy wonks to "make them" want to go to work and see their children get an education.

Well, I worked in various branches of "welfare" for many years, and followed studies, policies, etc.

The premises upon which the Clinton welfare "reform" were based were fallacious and essentially, mere repetitions of the demonetization and poor bashing of the Reagan years.

Studies were available at the time showing that most AFDC mothers already worked, but that due to the nature of the work available to them, the inadequacies of child-care/transportation/medical care/etc, and the inherent difficulties of parenting (sick children, etc. - which apply btw to both married and single working parents) they usually cycled on and off welfare as work was available and/or could net them an income at least equal to welfare.

Parents - including single mothers - on welfare were already required to seek/go to work once the children were of school age. If they couldn't find work, they had to do "work relief" - ie, work in County parking lots, etc.

Now, mothers of infants are expected to work, and deal with the vagaries of public transportation, low-wage jobs with crazy schedules, take whatever child care is available - there is not sufficient child care funding to assure quality care for all those who are eligible. Working while caring for infant is difficult under the best of circumstances; for these mothers, it is often a nightmare, contributing neither to eventual getting out of poverty nor healthy parenting.

Prior to welfare "reform" in NYS a mother could go to a two-year school full-time to fulfill her "work requirement" and have a shot at eventually getting into a profession that would actually take her out of poverty. Now, that same mother must fulfill a "work requirement" of at least 20 hrs - maybe more, I've been out of this work for a while, memory may not be exact - and anyway, isn't raising that requirement to 30 hrs one of the provisions in the Bill that "friend of the poor" HRC voted for? I can't keep track....too much hypocrisy and deception to remember it all.

Now, for a single mother to work 20 hrs a week AND go to school AND get a child to day care AND do homework as well as home-work....even under the best of circumstances....try it using public transportation. Right. As always, a few will manage, either because they have near super-human intelligence, resourcefulness, family support, a healthy "easy" child or some combination therof....and those few will be held up as a standard, for those who have none of those advantages as well.

And say every single one of those "welfare mothers" was now educated, skilled, "work-ready" in terms of no major barrier, has transportation, has the requisite wardrobe and middle-class social skills - where are the jobs for all of them? Oh, right.

The Clinton welfare "reform" is nothing but right-wing hatred of the poor and racism elevated to policy. Dropping welfare rolls prove nothing except that fewer people are on welfare - they don't tell you why, or that those individuals have living-wage jobs, or are not homeless.

As for "having children to get more welfare" in NYS - one of the more generous in terms of benefits -the difference in the "standard of need" between two and three people is currently $59. Pro baby not even enough to buy diapers. Increases in rent allowance and other benefits are equally paltry. No one has a child to get an extra $59 per month. The human desire/need to have children is as natural as breathing, and it is only in a corrupt capitalist society that humans would be expected to forgo it because they don't have "enough money."

WIC supplements food resources for the poor: a necessity because of the inadequacy of the food stamp grant. That grant is still inadequate once the child is too old for WIC, but I guess we decided as a society that slightly older children can better endure chronic hunger. WIC has never been fully funded and so it has never been possible for everyone who qualifies to receive it. Resulting, for instance, in toddlers being bumped off to serve infants. Like WIC, public housing has never served more than a fraction of those eligible for it. Leaving huge numbers of the poor at chronic risk for homelessness. None of these deficits were remedied by Clinton's welfare "reform."

The poor do not need caseworkers to "give them" pride. The poor are just like you and me. Most, like most humans everywhere, want to feel meaningfulness in their lives, whether derived through paid work or some other endeavor. A few, like some among the rich and in every other class/category/division of choice will choose indolence. Far more of "the poor" have various employment barriers or disabilities.Since capitalism requires a disposable labor pool and prefers a large pool of unemployed to drive wages down, I don't see why this is such a problem - the indolent simply fulfill that role.

Were we truly concerned about "the poor" we would do something about the appalling third world conditions in many of our inner cities, including in the schools there. We would have programs comparable to the FDR era "public works" If we were going to accept the Capitalist demand for less than full employment and a disposable labor pool, we would admit it and at least provide those out of work with a decent subsidy. Welfare "reform" did none of this. We would hardly fret about those few individuals who prefer watching TV all day to doing productive work - they too, have their place, providing jobs for an endless succession of caseworkers and social workers.

edit for misplaced paragraph

[Madam Mossfern]

122. In New Jersey

there's a program that allows a parent to attend school- two or four year college and not have to fulfill the extra 15 hours of work activity that usually goes with that. This program "stops the welfare clock" so that they can continue getting their benefits after they graduate.

There is also in New Jersey a program that allows a supplementary two years onto the standard five years if clients meet specific criteria. And..there are exemptions to the time limit completely. One of them is low test scores.

One cannot fix the situation merely by putting resources into schools. I've seen that and I've seen how that fails. In the inner cities there is a major cultural problem that needs to be addressed. Gangs terrorize the streets and the schools and I have too often seen distraught mothers whose sons have had the dilemma of either joining a gang or becoming a victim of one. There needs to be something done about a culture in which babies are having babies.

And yes...these clients do know that if it weren't for their situation that we (the case managers) would not have jobs. They know that the system is not working to help them. As employment specialists we need to be advocates for our clients, but even that is difficult as we have case loads of three hundred.

[bread_and_roses]

123. caseloads like that are ridiculous and show what a true farce

our system is - the best, most skilled caseworker in the world can't provide much in the way of support under such conditions. And for the all too many who enter the field because they have unresolved power issues which they can indulge by lording it over and screwing the poor, the appalling caseloads provide a ready "stress" excuse for their abysmal behaviour. I have a lot of admiration for any who do stick it out to try to be an advocate - an advocate, not a punishing parent or a scolding principal or - like some of the worst I've known - a near Nazi little power-monger, getting off on their sense of superiority over and half-drunk with their righteous exercise of power.

By the way, nowhere did I say that better schools were sufficient alone. However, they are a necessity, among others.

If we don't want "babies having babies" then we need to change the social conditions in which that seems to some the only meaningful and viable choice they can make. Birthrates drop after life conditions improve, generally, if I remember correctly - not before.

Blaming "culture," I'm afraid, just distracts from the conditions that we can alter, if we choose.

[Madam Mossfern]

124. I would agree with you

But how do we change social conditions? Better affordable and public housing built to promote community is one way. Better programs for children and better daycare are important. If I didn't mistrust the state so much, I'd say standardized state or local government run day care to ensure quality may work..cut out the profit issue of private sub-standard day care. I'd like to see a candidate who can outline real change in the welfare system that will actually work to assist those who have barriers to getting out of the welfare loop.

Yes, I know those lording over power hungry types of worker you refer to. It's quite sickening and I took some joy in seeing one of them actually being written up the other day. I know that the size of our case loads are outrageous and I try my damnest to help all those who want it. As I posted in another thread, I love my job as stressful as it can be and I love every one of my clients, even the ones who are angry angry angry. That's because I can understand why they're angry. It takes a incredible amount of creativity and 'bending' the rules to serve this population well within the system that exists, but every tiny victory, a job, a certification, a diploma is worth the fight.

[ecstatic]

126. I get what you're saying, but on the flip side, welfare, as it was back then, destroyed communities

For me, it's not about the money. It's about the social consequences. The whole public housing situation seemed like a good idea at the time, but they grouped the poorest and worst off in these huge prison like buildings and everyone in them suffered. Thank goodness, most of the ones in Atlanta are now torn down and, at least in Atlanta, we subscribe to mixed income communities in the city, where low income, moderate, and high income people are all in the same vicinity and children get to grow up in an economically diverse atmosphere. What we need is the right combination of government help that also puts personal responsibility into play.


Now, mothers of infants are expected to work, and deal with the vagaries of public transportation, low-wage jobs with crazy schedules, take whatever child care is available

Of course! I have to work! We all have to work. I decided not to have kids yet for precisely this reason--because I cannot afford them right now. I'm not judging, I'm just saying. Life is hard!

Prior to welfare "reform" in NYS a mother could go to a two-year school full-time to fulfill her "work requirement" and have a shot at eventually getting into a profession that would actually take her out of poverty.

So basically the former system made it more desirable to have kids before one was ready for the responsibility? Did someone who actually postponed parenthood get the same privilege of being able to go to school full time?

[undergroundpanther]

129. What I need you to understand is this

If a person can rule over others and exploit them they are not free.Some people can cope with being caged by systems others cannot.
An empire cannot co exist with a community. Because a community does not grow or produce excess to sell that is waste.An empire exists to feed the top with luxury opulence and wealth.WEe live in an empire so a community must not be allowed to become strong enough and related enough care enough about each other to either abandon empire or destroy the empire. People on welfare have time they could form communities so the empire makes sure there ids enough misery addiction and abuse among the poor so they are less able to form a community.

We face a defining choice between two contrasting models for organizing human affairs. Give them the generic names Empire and Earth Community. Absent an understanding of the history and implications of this choice, we may squander valuable time and resources on efforts to preserve or mend cultures and institutions that cannot be fixed and must be replaced.
http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=1463

Did you know food sharing(potluck) is a threat to empire?
http://www.trentarthur.info/archives/001179.html
Food sharing is such a threat...
Cities use a wide variety of ordinances, policies, and tactics to discourage individuals and groups from sharing food with homeless and other poor persons. Over the past year and a half:
The Las Vegas city council passed an ordinance that bans “the providing of food or meals to the indigent for free or for a nominal fee” in city parks;

The City of Wilmington, N.C., passed an ordinance that prohibits the sharing of food on city streets and sidewalks;
The Orlando, Fla., city council passed an ordinance that prohibits sharing food with more than 25 people in city parks without a permit and limits groups to doing so to two times a year;

Even as they pursue measures to target groups that share food with homeless people, most cities
do not have adequate shelter or food resources to meet the need.
Why would states start prohibiting food sharing? Because a community forms around the act of eating and talking together when people share they relate to EACH OTHER.And in time that forms a community a community is not profitable it is sustaining and it threatens hegemony of the dominator/parasite class.
Such a threat is sharing food it could land you in jail for 6 months!

Punishment for violating food sharing restrictions can be extreme:
In Orlando, police arrested a man who served food to 30 people in a public park for violating a city ordinance that prohibits sharing food with more than 25 people without a permit. He faced a penalty of up to a $500 fine and 60 days in jail for violating this law.
In Dallas, anyone caught sharing food with a homeless person without a permit may be fined up to $2,000 and/or jailed for up to six months.

Did you know you can get your food stamps cut if you share food food with your roommates?
-live alone or live with others but **do not share meals*** OR
-are homeless, even if they live in a shelter
http://www.cbpp.org/10-27-05fa.htm

Food sharing restrictions deny homeless persons (and poor people) a basic human right. Food is not an addiction; food is necessary for survival. Depriving a person of food means that she must
put all of her energy into obtaining food and less energy on improving other aspects of her life. Placing restrictions on food sharing at a time where there is an increased need for housing and food assistance leaves many people with nowhere to turn for basic survival needs.
http://www.nlchp.org/content/pubs/Feeding_Intolerance.07.pdf
Kill Kill Kill the Poor...

Can a buck curb hunger?
http://curbyourhunger.blogspot.com/
http://www.sharingwitness.org/hunger_poverty/my_food_stamp_experience_begin/


A place fighting for the human rights of poor people.
http://www.nlchp.org/

Food stamp cuts approved by pelosi go beyond what Bush proposed,it was hidden in the farm bill,Read it and be disgusted.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/07/26/MNG9AR6V6Q1.DTL

[bread_and_roses]

137. I think you misapply blame - it is not "welfare" that destroys communities

After all, "welfare" is simply some money - unless perhaps one considers that its' inadequacy to even provide food and shelter is destructive of community. In which case increasing it would be the answer, or part of it. In fact, during the sixties there was a vibrant and growing "welfare rights" movement which was strengthening community. The Black Panthers, in their non-violent mode, were another manifestation of the same principle - people exercising their own power to create community to enact change. The insane "war against drugs" took care of that - assuring an endless supply of illicit drugs and guns, the endless cycle of incarceration, and the institutionalization of Prohibition era gangster violence in our inner cities. Can't have those poor (and especially black and brown) people actually organizing now to effect change and control their own lives, can we?

What we need is the right combination of government help that also puts personal responsibility into play.

And exactly how has "personal responsibility" ever not been "in play?" I am sure you realize that "personal responsibility" is right wing code for punish the poor for being poor - in essence, let them die if, for whatever reason, they fall into the underclass in our Capitalist world. I excuse you from intending those meanings, but by using that phrase as if it were meaningful you reinforce that world-view. You say that you do not have children - well, if you want a dose of personal responsibility, try having a child - on welfare or not. There is nothing in the basic provision of food, shelter, medical care and education that "excuses" one of personal responsibility, except in a Libertarian hell where one must "buy" all of those "goods," and I am sure you are not advocating such an approach.

Perhaps what we need is a guaranteed national income, to take the stigma off welfare. After all, Alaska does this, on a small scale, and no one accuses that "dole" of destroying community or diminishing "personal responsibility." People have forgotten that Nixon actually floated this idea. It is interesting how ready we are to assume that a paltry sum (in NYS roughly $500 per month including a rent allowance for two) is so destructive of "personal responsibility" and "community" while accepting that a $20 million "golden parachute" will not do the same....

Of course! I have to work! We all have to work. I decided not to have kids yet for precisely this reason--because I cannot afford them right now. I'm not judging, I'm just saying. Life is hard!


You are aware, I presume, that there are no jobs in our inner cities? And that getting to a job in some suburb is difficult and very expensive, even without the added factor of getting a child to and from daycare? And that the human desire to have children is not, nor ever has been, controlled by income? (It is influenced by income and life opportunities, but if I remember what I've read aright, falling birth rates and delayed childbirth generally come AFTER living standards rise.) Tell you what, try this for a day. Borrow someone's infant. Get up several hours before you do now, wake the infant, feed and dress him/her, pack a bag with formula and clothes for the day, bundle him/her up, go out and wait for a bus, ride to day care, go back out and wait again for the bus, take the bus to your four hour shift at McDonald's, repeat after the shift. Don't forget that the bus is unlikely to stop right in front of either your house or the Day Care location, so you have a walk at both ends, in all weather, lugging an infant and a heavy bag. Oh, and that's not a day when the Day Care calls to tell you the child spiked a fever, and you have to leave work to pick up the child and get to a doctor. You will, depending on where the child care is, spend two-four hours getting to and from your four hour, minimum wage job. Which will probably not gross you enough income to take you off welfare anyway. Now, tell me that makes sense, or is anything but sheer punitiveness?

However - and I do not say this in denigration - that sentence is so saturated with the underlying premises of Capitalism that I cannot begin to respond to it. I will simply say that if one takes off the Capitalist lenses it becomes easily apparent that tying the desire to bear children to one's earning power is insane. Not to mention that minimum wage will will not take even a nuclear family of three with two wage earners out of poverty, meaning that those workers, by your standard, should NEVER have children under our current system. And, one might consider that there is nothing inherently "wrong" with young women of say 16 and into the early twenties having children - it is, actually, precisely what nature intended. And if we want younger girls to stop having children, perhaps we should stop putting growth hormone in our food supply - girls are now entering menarche as young as nine, which I seriously doubt nature did intend.

And why, in a filthy rich country, should obtaining basic food, shelter, medical care, and education be "hard?" It should be a right. And surely, whatever your thoughts on the "personal responsibility" of the parents, you can hardly believe that children should be denied these basics because they were unlucky enough to have "irresponsible" parents?

So basically the former system made it more desirable to have kids before one was ready for the responsibility? Did someone who actually postponed parenthood get the same privilege of being able to go to school full time?

Of course someone who "actually postponed parenthood" had the same "privilege" of opting to go to school full time - although that begs the question of why education suitable to one's talents and potential should be a "privilege" in such a rich country. Do you think that those going to school did not have to acquire grants, take out loans, etc? All welfare did was treat school like "work" and leave that paltry grant in place, meaning that a single mother (or father, for that matter) did not have to take a job. In essence, that also granted child-rearing the status of "work" - and what is wrong with that? Raising children is surely an essential function of a human community, no?

Not to mention that you seem to be putting a desire to "punish" the "irresponsible" parent ahead of what may be best for the community. Taking all the premises which underlie your post as givens, it is better for the community to, where possible, move families out of poverty. If a single parent has the ability and desire to, say, become a ultrasound technician, and those jobs are available and pay enough to support a single parent and child, then it is in the communities interest to make that move possible. Denying that opportunity to "punish" the "irresponsible" individual who had the temerity to have a child at the "wrong" time is in no one's interest.

But all that begs the question that I'll ask again. Say we could "fix" all the barriers that keep people from being able to perform jobs that pay enough to support a parent and child - you know, those "high-tech" "information age" jobs we are always hearing about. Where are all those jobs? So, what then?

[undergroundpanther]

133. If we were really concerned for the poor

We would destroy the ruling class,corporate person hood and forbid industriously greedy and selfish individuals from acquiring too much wealth to themselves.

[bread_and_roses]

139. Take out the language of destruction and in essence I agree with you

In a rich Capitalist country, poverty is a social construct and exists to serve the capitalist need for a huge disposable labor force to both drive down wages and to assure a ready supply of labor for short-term "peak" demands.

We choose this system, and could make other choices.

But I prefer the langauage of non-violent, organic, people/community driven change to that of destruction.

For a glimmer of hope, there's a list of books over at Alternet, documenting just such people-driven change, in Countries all over the world:
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/72226/?page=1

[Perry Logan]

135. Under Bill Clinton, America enjoyed the largest five-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years.

Under Bill Clinton, the poverty rate dropped from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 12.7 percent in 1998—the lowest poverty rate since 1979 and the largest five-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years (1965-1970).

The poverty rate for African-American children fell from 46.1 percent in 1993 to 36.7 percent in 1998 -- the lowest level in 20 years and the biggest five-year drop on record.

The poverty rate for Hispanics fell to the lowest level since 1979, and dropped to 25.6 percent in 1998.

The Clinton Administration also had the lowest poverty rate for single mothers on record.

[NaturalHigh]

138. When I was a teacher...

a 15-year-old boy told a guest speaker at our school that his goal was to get on welfare and get a check every month. No one can tell me this was a good mindset to have or that the farce that was welfare back then didn't foster that mindset.

[MyNameGoesHere]

140. And these people? Do they get a pass becuase you have hard on

for Hillary?

Welfare Reform Bill: HR 3734, Final Passage


H.R. 3734 by KASICH (R-OH) -- Personal Responsibility, Work
Opportunity and Medicaid Restructuring Act of 1996


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEGI-SLATE Report for the 104th Congress Fri, August 9, 1996 12:44pm (EDT)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILL TEXT Report for H.R.3734
As finally approved by the House and Senate (Enrolled)




----------------------------------------
H.R.3734 As finally approved by the House and Senate (Enrolled)
----------------------------------------

SENATE VOTE ON H.R. 3734

Abraham, Ashcroft, Baucus, Bennett, Biden, Bond, Breaux, Brown, Bryan, Burns,
Byrd, Campbell, Chafee, Coats, Cochran, Cohen, Conrad, Coverdell, Craig,
D'Amato, DeWine, Domenici, Dorgan, Exon, Faircloth, Feingold, Ford, Frahm,
Frist, Gorton, Graham, Gramm, Grams, Grassley, Gregg, Harkin, Hatch,
Hatfield, Heflin, Helms, Hollings, Hutchison, Inhofe, Jeffords, Johnston,
Kassebaum, Kempthorne, Kerry, Kohl, Kyl, Levin, Lieberman, Lott, Lugar, Mack,

McCain, McConnell, Mikulski, Murkowski, Nickles, Nunn, Pressler, Reid, Robb,
Rockefeller, Roth, Santorum, Shelby, Simpson, Smith, Snowe, Specter, Stevens,

Thomas, Thompson, Thurmond, Warner, Wyden

NAYS--21

Akaka, Bingaman, Boxer, Bradley, Bumpers, Daschle, Dodd, Feinstein, Glenn,
Inouye, Kennedy, Kerrey, Lautenberg, Leahy, Moseley-Braun, Moynihan, Murray,
Pell, Sarbanes, Simon, Wellstone,

NOT VOTING--1
Pryor

[Dems Will Win]

141. Well we have to blame Biden too then!

Wish I could change the tile of this thread and add Biden...

[GreenTea]

142. It's called being a fucking moderate, as Hillary proudly proclaims herself....sickening!