Trump moves to restore work requirement for welfare

Lovebug said:
You forgot to say blame Bubba if you don't agree with what Trump is doing. He did it first.
(just being preemptive here)
Click to expand...

Did you have a comment on trump pulling the wavier, putting back in place the rules set by "bubba" & the GOP congress??
 
There were predictions that millions would starve or die when this passed in 1996. Turned out to be very unfounded.

I'm glad we have a safety net so we don't see people starving on the streets but I don't think it unrealistic to ask/require people to be at least looking for work.
 
I was for it then & now... Nothing wrong w/ asking ppl to work, assuming there is work available..

I think most are now already working....
 
Bill said:
I was for it then & now... Nothing wrong w/ asking ppl to work, assuming there is work available..

I think most are now already working....
Click to expand...

Availability is a big problem in some regions for sure. I have lived in places where 100 people line up for any one job opening, and I have lived in places where no one shows up for multiple job openings.
Other issues may come up as well. A single mother may spend more on daycare than she would make at most jobs. Transportation is another. Of course that could be solved with some ingenuity.
I am guessing that more people want to work rather than receiving welfare.
 
Lovebug said:
Availability is a big problem in some regions for sure. I have lived in places where 100 people line up for any one job opening, and I have lived in places where no one shows up for multiple job openings.
Other issues may come up as well. A single mother may spend more on daycare than she would make at most jobs. Transportation is another. Of course that could be solved with some ingenuity.
I am guessing that more people want to work rather than receiving welfare.
Click to expand...

Yes, those are some very real points... Problems not easily solved..

& what if they refuse or just don't show up??

Their kids??
 
And just like the drug testing for welfare program, it will cost more to implement and manage than it will save in revenue.

But it sounds good to right wing idiots and makes them feel good, so who really cares if it's effective at saving the taxpayers money.

Morons.
 
Bill said:
Yes, those are some very real points... Problems not easily solved..

& what if they refuse or just don't show up??

Their kids??
Click to expand...

There will be such a large pool of people who have to be exempted, it will render the program virtually meaningless.

The elderly, the disabled, those with medical conditions, mothers with young children, single fathers, etc, etc.

Just more bloody red meat for the fire breathing chest beaters on the right.
 
Nomad said:
And just like the drug testing for welfare program, it will cost more to implement and manage than it will save in revenue.

But it sounds good to right wing idiots and makes them feel good, so who really cares if it's effective at saving the taxpayers money.

Morons.
Click to expand...

Why did Clinton sign it in '96 then?

the idea of giving welfare with no strings attached is good with you?
 
Nomad said:
And just like the drug testing for welfare program, it will cost more to implement and manage than it will save in revenue.

But it sounds good to right wing idiots and makes them feel good, so who really cares if it's effective at saving the taxpayers money.

Morons.
Click to expand...

its very hard to get back in the groove of working if youve been unemployed for a while. At least this prevents people from forming bad habits.
 
Nomad said:
And just like the drug testing for welfare program, it will cost more to implement and manage than it will save in revenue.

But it sounds good to right wing idiots and makes them feel good, so who really cares if it's effective at saving the taxpayers money.

Morons.
Click to expand...
you are just void of any ideas on solving anything aren't you.

One of those clowns that sits back and waits for someone to offer a solution to a problem and spout off criticism. Like a whiny nutbag.

Why liberals lose everything they run for theses days? look no further
 
cawacko said:
Why did Clinton sign it in '96 then?

the idea of giving welfare with no strings attached is good with you?
Click to expand...

If the strings are realistic and really meant to help rather than just to hinder or punish, then I'd support them.

But we all know how the Republican mind works. Everything is about punishment and deprivation.

Why did Clinton sign it?

A central pledge of Clinton's campaign was to reform the welfare system, adding changes such as work requirements for recipients. However, by 1994, the Clinton Administration appeared to be more concerned with universal health care, and no details or a plan had emerged on welfare reform. Newt Gingrich accused the President of stalling on welfare and proclaimed that Congress could pass a welfare reform bill in as little as 90 days. Gingrich promised that the Republican Party would continue to apply political pressure to the President to approve welfare legislation.

In 1996, after constructing two welfare reform bills that were vetoed by President Clinton, Gingrich and his supporters pushed for the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), a bill aimed at substantially reconstructing the welfare system. Authored by Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr., the act gave state governments more autonomy over welfare delivery, while also reducing the federal government's responsibilities.

It started the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program, which placed time limits on welfare assistance and replaced the longstanding Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. Other changes to the welfare system included stricter conditions for food stamps eligibility, reductions in immigrant welfare assistance, and recipient work requirements.

Gingrich and Clinton negotiated the legislation in private meetings. Previously, Clinton had quietly spoken with Senate Majority Whip Trent Lott for months about the bill, but a compromise on a more acceptable bill for the President could not be reached. Gingrich, on the other hand, gave accurate information about his party's vote counts and persuaded the more conservative members of the Republican Party to vote in favor of PRWORA.

President Clinton found the legislation more conservative than he would have preferred; however, having vetoed two earlier welfare proposals from the Republican-majority Congress, it was considered a political risk to veto a third bill during a campaign season with welfare reform as a central theme.
Click to expand...

What can you say?

Compromise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top