Ten myth busting facts about welfare

[David_42]

Important read.
Ten myth-busting facts about welfare

Unlike monthly jobs numbers, poverty numbers come out only once a year—and they’ll be rolling out on Tuesday. That means this is the time to talk about the 46.2 million living in poverty. And you can’t talk about poverty without talking about welfare, officially known as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.

It may come as a surprise, but TANF was never intended to be a comprehensive anti-poverty program. It was designed to be a temporary leg up, but its mission varies greatly from state to state.

Here are a few other facts that may surprise you:

1. States have no legal obligation to support poor families with cash. States have a lot more freedom to do what they want with this program than people realize. In the extreme, states could even decide to get rid of TANF altogether, as Alabama budget cuts threatened to do last year.
2. States are able to set their own rules about who gets TANF and how much, usually reflecting the state’s culture and philosophy about government’s role in helping the poor. Some states believe the poor shouldn’t get help from the government. Whether a family receives TANF assistance and how much they receive depends largely on the state where they live. For example, in Texas, fewer than 1 in 10 poor families receive assistance, compared with almost three out of four in California.
3. Not everyone who is poor gets welfare. The official poverty line is already so low that a family of three with any income over $1,500 a month is not officially poor. And even that is not poor enough to qualify for TANF. To qualify, you typically need to have income below half the poverty line; in some states, the income limit is much lower. Cash assistance reaches fewer than one in three poor families nationally (about 1.5 percent of the total population).
4. Reducing poverty is not one of TANF’s purposes. The amount families receive from TANF does not come close to lifting them out of poverty. The most a family could receive in the most generous state is still less than half the federal poverty line. A family of three would receive at most about $400 a month in the average state.
5. Even though TANF was intended to assist needy families and promote work, the program devotes relatively few resources to either purpose.
   • In 2010, only 28.8 percent of TANF funds nationally was spent on cash payments to needy families. Less than 8 percent goes to activities that help people find work (including job search, work subsidies, education and training, transportation, individual development accounts, and other work expenses, combined).
   • A whopping 63 percent is spent on other social service programs or child care, or the other two purposes of TANF: preventing out-of-wedlock pregnancies and encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.
6. The amount the federal government gives states for TANF has not changed since 1997. The federal government spends a total of $16.5 billion a year on TANF. This figure does not change with inflation, so it is worth less and less over time. States are obligated to contribute their own funds as well.
7. The program was not responsive to the recession or the recent rise in poverty. During the recession, the share of needy families receiving cash assistance fell. The number of families receiving cash assistance grew, but the number of poor families grew faster.
   • While unemployment rates doubled, the number of families receiving cash assistance grew by only 13 percent.
   • The poverty rate increased from 11 percent in 2000 to 15 percent in 2011.
   • Child poverty rose from 16 percent in 2000 to 22 percent in 2011.
8. Since TANF began in 1997, the share of poor families receiving assistance has fallen in all states, and the difference among states has grown. In 1998, about half (53 percent) of poor families with children nationally received TANF cash assistance, compared with 28 percent in 2010. In 1998, poor families in California were three times more likely to receive cash assistance than families in Texas; by 2010, California poor families were 10 times more like to receive cash assistance than those in Texas, where TANF cash assistance went to just 7 out of 100 poor families with children.

 

[ScienceRocks]

There's nothing more disgusting then hearing a loserterian whine about how we should let them die.

 

[David_42]

There's nothing more disgusting then hearing a loserterian whine about how we should let them die.

Well, they won't directly say "let them die."

 

[Obiwan]

One myth-busting fact...

Get off your lazy ass and get a job, and you get off my dime....

But you're a Democrat, right????

 

[BluesLegend]

The welfare class looks well fed for being poor, maybe they should get a job and work off some of that lard ass.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Obama has created so many jobs that we shouldn't need welfare anymore....

 

[Obiwan]

The welfare class looks well fed for being poor, maybe they should get a job and work off some of that lard ass.

The new Moochell diet!!!

 

[ninja007]

most welfare recipients are generational. Libs love welfare- it keeps them dependent on the gov.= votes for dems every time. Kinda like crack.

 

[Wildman]

bust this myth if you can.
"Several years ago, when 17,000 aborted babies were found in a dumpster outside a pathology laboratory in Los, Angeles, California, some 12-15,000 were observed to be black."

--Erma Clardy Craven (deceased)
Social Worker and Civil Rights Leader

/

On average, 1,876 black babies are aborted every day in the United States.

this is a myth ??

NO FUCKING WAY!!

 

[Misty]

Important read.
Ten myth-busting facts about welfare

Unlike monthly jobs numbers, poverty numbers come out only once a year—and they’ll be rolling out on Tuesday. That means this is the time to talk about the 46.2 million living in poverty. And you can’t talk about poverty without talking about welfare, officially known as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.

It may come as a surprise, but TANF was never intended to be a comprehensive anti-poverty program. It was designed to be a temporary leg up, but its mission varies greatly from state to state.

Here are a few other facts that may surprise you:

1. States have no legal obligation to support poor families with cash. States have a lot more freedom to do what they want with this program than people realize. In the extreme, states could even decide to get rid of TANF altogether, as Alabama budget cuts threatened to do last year.
2. States are able to set their own rules about who gets TANF and how much, usually reflecting the state’s culture and philosophy about government’s role in helping the poor. Some states believe the poor shouldn’t get help from the government. Whether a family receives TANF assistance and how much they receive depends largely on the state where they live. For example, in Texas, fewer than 1 in 10 poor families receive assistance, compared with almost three out of four in California.
3. Not everyone who is poor gets welfare. The official poverty line is already so low that a family of three with any income over $1,500 a month is not officially poor. And even that is not poor enough to qualify for TANF. To qualify, you typically need to have income below half the poverty line; in some states, the income limit is much lower. Cash assistance reaches fewer than one in three poor families nationally (about 1.5 percent of the total population).
4. Reducing poverty is not one of TANF’s purposes. The amount families receive from TANF does not come close to lifting them out of poverty. The most a family could receive in the most generous state is still less than half the federal poverty line. A family of three would receive at most about $400 a month in the average state.
5. Even though TANF was intended to assist needy families and promote work, the program devotes relatively few resources to either purpose.
   • In 2010, only 28.8 percent of TANF funds nationally was spent on cash payments to needy families. Less than 8 percent goes to activities that help people find work (including job search, work subsidies, education and training, transportation, individual development accounts, and other work expenses, combined).
   • A whopping 63 percent is spent on other social service programs or child care, or the other two purposes of TANF: preventing out-of-wedlock pregnancies and encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.
6. The amount the federal government gives states for TANF has not changed since 1997. The federal government spends a total of $16.5 billion a year on TANF. This figure does not change with inflation, so it is worth less and less over time. States are obligated to contribute their own funds as well.
7. The program was not responsive to the recession or the recent rise in poverty. During the recession, the share of needy families receiving cash assistance fell. The number of families receiving cash assistance grew, but the number of poor families grew faster.
   • While unemployment rates doubled, the number of families receiving cash assistance grew by only 13 percent.
   • The poverty rate increased from 11 percent in 2000 to 15 percent in 2011.
   • Child poverty rose from 16 percent in 2000 to 22 percent in 2011.
8. Since TANF began in 1997, the share of poor families receiving assistance has fallen in all states, and the difference among states has grown. In 1998, about half (53 percent) of poor families with children nationally received TANF cash assistance, compared with 28 percent in 2010. In 1998, poor families in California were three times more likely to receive cash assistance than families in Texas; by 2010, California poor families were 10 times more like to receive cash assistance than those in Texas, where TANF cash assistance went to just 7 out of 100 poor families with children.

Your site busted. Lol

"The Urban Institute is a Washington DC-based think tank that carries out economic and social policy research to "open minds, shape decisions, and offer solutions."[1] The institute receives funding from government contracts, foundations and private donors. The Urban Institute measures policy effects, compares options, shows which stakeholders get the most and least, tests conventional wisdom, reveals trends, and makes costs, benefits, and risks explicit.[2] The Urban Institutue is described as a "leading liberal think tank" by the Los Angeles Times[3]

 

[Londoner]

Welfare, the stupid and the politics of race

Regrettably, each party has had to form alliances with stupid people (low-information voters with very little post high school education) in order to win elections and erect major reforms.

1930's-1980 - Racism opens the door to the New Deal: The Democrats, under FDR, got in bed with stupid people from the South in order to form the New Deal Coalition, which lasted from the 1930s to 1980. [The coalition started to splinter in 1964 when LBJ passed the Civil Rights Act - however, it didn't totally dissolve until 1980]

1980 until the present: Racism opens the door to the Reagan Revolution. After the Democrats passed the Civil Rights Act, stupid racists from the South began to question their allegiance to the Democratic Party. Goldwater and Nixon understood this. They were the first to exploit white backlash against desegregation, but it was Reagan who used the "Southern Strategy" to flip the Solid South and create a voting coalition that would allow the far right to finally take control of Washington.

Here is how the Right and Reagan did it. They told white voters that the government, through welfare, was taking their money and giving it to lazy, back criminals (Welfare Queens). Meanwhile, the Right, through Reagan, was racking up historic debt and creating trade policies that would ultimately ship America's manufacturing dominance to Communist China (so that our capitalists could profit from criminally cheap labor in freedom-hating nations across Asia and the Global South). The real welfare was going to corporations because the Reagan Revolution would open the floodgates to lobbying along with handing legislative and regulatory control to corporations.

The Reagan Revolution exploited welfare fears - mostly over race - to create a vast subterfuge which allowed them to erect a massive subsidy and bailout system for corporations. They didn't end Welfare, they shifted it to the wealthy.

This effort was in concert with a slow unwinding of Welfare programs.

What happened to all the blacks who lost welfare support?

Reagan created the War on Drugs partly to give big government greater law enforcement power to move poor African Americans from Welfare to prison. Remember: Reagan's War on Drugs was partly done as a response to the growth of ghettos and crack and drug use in our inner cities (which had been partly destroyed by the deindustrialization programs of Reagan's trade policies, which shipped manufacturing to China).

Welfare was a canard that exploited white fears - mostly over race - in order to change which economic class benefited form government largess. Sadly, with Reagan, government debt skyrocketed because for every dollar he cut from welfare, he added thousands in subsidies and bailouts to the rich.

....This was all made possible because our cynical leaders were/are skilled at taking advantage of the stupid.

 

[Avorysuds]

If welfare worked at lifting people out of poverty then why are more people impoverished despite the ever growing and unsustainable welfare system we currently have?

Racists support welfare, because they understand it destroys minorities as even mentally challenged people can find information showing that.

 

[G.T.]

One myth-busting fact...

Get off your lazy ass and get a job, and you get off my dime....

But you're a Democrat, right????

Nobody uses dimes anymore you outdated lame

 

[francoHFW]

The welfare class looks well fed for being poor, maybe they should get a job and work off some of that lard ass.

Cheap processed food make you fat and sick rather than healthy. How bout a jobs/infrastructure bill, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging, enterprise zones in inner cities, and better public transportation, hater dupes. NO ONE prefers welfare to a good job.

 

[francoHFW]

bust this myth if you can.
"Several years ago, when 17,000 aborted babies were found in a dumpster outside a pathology laboratory in Los, Angeles, California, some 12-15,000 were observed to be black."

--Erma Clardy Craven (deceased)
Social Worker and Civil Rights Leader

/

On average, 1,876 black babies are aborted every day in the United States.

this is a myth ??

NO FUCKING WAY!!

That will finally end with free birth control. Better than free, chumps. Saves EVERYONE money. Your party is a bs hateful divisive disgrace.

 

[Obiwan]

The welfare class looks well fed for being poor, maybe they should get a job and work off some of that lard ass.

Cheap processed food make you fat and sick rather than healthy. How bout a jobs/infrastructure bill, training for 3-4 million tech jobs going begging, enterprise zones in inner cities, and better public transportation, hater dupes. NO ONE prefers welfare to a good job.

Then get an education where you're semi-literate and get one.

 

[David_42]

Important read.
Ten myth-busting facts about welfare

Unlike monthly jobs numbers, poverty numbers come out only once a year—and they’ll be rolling out on Tuesday. That means this is the time to talk about the 46.2 million living in poverty. And you can’t talk about poverty without talking about welfare, officially known as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.

It may come as a surprise, but TANF was never intended to be a comprehensive anti-poverty program. It was designed to be a temporary leg up, but its mission varies greatly from state to state.

Here are a few other facts that may surprise you:

1. States have no legal obligation to support poor families with cash. States have a lot more freedom to do what they want with this program than people realize. In the extreme, states could even decide to get rid of TANF altogether, as Alabama budget cuts threatened to do last year.
2. States are able to set their own rules about who gets TANF and how much, usually reflecting the state’s culture and philosophy about government’s role in helping the poor. Some states believe the poor shouldn’t get help from the government. Whether a family receives TANF assistance and how much they receive depends largely on the state where they live. For example, in Texas, fewer than 1 in 10 poor families receive assistance, compared with almost three out of four in California.
3. Not everyone who is poor gets welfare. The official poverty line is already so low that a family of three with any income over $1,500 a month is not officially poor. And even that is not poor enough to qualify for TANF. To qualify, you typically need to have income below half the poverty line; in some states, the income limit is much lower. Cash assistance reaches fewer than one in three poor families nationally (about 1.5 percent of the total population).
4. Reducing poverty is not one of TANF’s purposes. The amount families receive from TANF does not come close to lifting them out of poverty. The most a family could receive in the most generous state is still less than half the federal poverty line. A family of three would receive at most about $400 a month in the average state.
5. Even though TANF was intended to assist needy families and promote work, the program devotes relatively few resources to either purpose.
   • In 2010, only 28.8 percent of TANF funds nationally was spent on cash payments to needy families. Less than 8 percent goes to activities that help people find work (including job search, work subsidies, education and training, transportation, individual development accounts, and other work expenses, combined).
   • A whopping 63 percent is spent on other social service programs or child care, or the other two purposes of TANF: preventing out-of-wedlock pregnancies and encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.
6. The amount the federal government gives states for TANF has not changed since 1997. The federal government spends a total of $16.5 billion a year on TANF. This figure does not change with inflation, so it is worth less and less over time. States are obligated to contribute their own funds as well.
7. The program was not responsive to the recession or the recent rise in poverty. During the recession, the share of needy families receiving cash assistance fell. The number of families receiving cash assistance grew, but the number of poor families grew faster.
   • While unemployment rates doubled, the number of families receiving cash assistance grew by only 13 percent.
   • The poverty rate increased from 11 percent in 2000 to 15 percent in 2011.
   • Child poverty rose from 16 percent in 2000 to 22 percent in 2011.
8. Since TANF began in 1997, the share of poor families receiving assistance has fallen in all states, and the difference among states has grown. In 1998, about half (53 percent) of poor families with children nationally received TANF cash assistance, compared with 28 percent in 2010. In 1998, poor families in California were three times more likely to receive cash assistance than families in Texas; by 2010, California poor families were 10 times more like to receive cash assistance than those in Texas, where TANF cash assistance went to just 7 out of 100 poor families with children.

Your site busted. Lol

"The Urban Institute is a Washington DC-based think tank that carries out economic and social policy research to "open minds, shape decisions, and offer solutions."[1] The institute receives funding from government contracts, foundations and private donors. The Urban Institute measures policy effects, compares options, shows which stakeholders get the most and least, tests conventional wisdom, reveals trends, and makes costs, benefits, and risks explicit.[2] The Urban Institutue is described as a "leading liberal think tank" by the Los Angeles Times[3]

You do realize what I've posted happens to be cold hard facts. Refute one of them.

 

[Misty]

Important read.
Ten myth-busting facts about welfare

Unlike monthly jobs numbers, poverty numbers come out only once a year—and they’ll be rolling out on Tuesday. That means this is the time to talk about the 46.2 million living in poverty. And you can’t talk about poverty without talking about welfare, officially known as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.

It may come as a surprise, but TANF was never intended to be a comprehensive anti-poverty program. It was designed to be a temporary leg up, but its mission varies greatly from state to state.

Here are a few other facts that may surprise you:

1. States have no legal obligation to support poor families with cash. States have a lot more freedom to do what they want with this program than people realize. In the extreme, states could even decide to get rid of TANF altogether, as Alabama budget cuts threatened to do last year.
2. States are able to set their own rules about who gets TANF and how much, usually reflecting the state’s culture and philosophy about government’s role in helping the poor. Some states believe the poor shouldn’t get help from the government. Whether a family receives TANF assistance and how much they receive depends largely on the state where they live. For example, in Texas, fewer than 1 in 10 poor families receive assistance, compared with almost three out of four in California.
3. Not everyone who is poor gets welfare. The official poverty line is already so low that a family of three with any income over $1,500 a month is not officially poor. And even that is not poor enough to qualify for TANF. To qualify, you typically need to have income below half the poverty line; in some states, the income limit is much lower. Cash assistance reaches fewer than one in three poor families nationally (about 1.5 percent of the total population).
4. Reducing poverty is not one of TANF’s purposes. The amount families receive from TANF does not come close to lifting them out of poverty. The most a family could receive in the most generous state is still less than half the federal poverty line. A family of three would receive at most about $400 a month in the average state.
5. Even though TANF was intended to assist needy families and promote work, the program devotes relatively few resources to either purpose.
   • In 2010, only 28.8 percent of TANF funds nationally was spent on cash payments to needy families. Less than 8 percent goes to activities that help people find work (including job search, work subsidies, education and training, transportation, individual development accounts, and other work expenses, combined).
   • A whopping 63 percent is spent on other social service programs or child care, or the other two purposes of TANF: preventing out-of-wedlock pregnancies and encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.
6. The amount the federal government gives states for TANF has not changed since 1997. The federal government spends a total of $16.5 billion a year on TANF. This figure does not change with inflation, so it is worth less and less over time. States are obligated to contribute their own funds as well.
7. The program was not responsive to the recession or the recent rise in poverty. During the recession, the share of needy families receiving cash assistance fell. The number of families receiving cash assistance grew, but the number of poor families grew faster.
   • While unemployment rates doubled, the number of families receiving cash assistance grew by only 13 percent.
   • The poverty rate increased from 11 percent in 2000 to 15 percent in 2011.
   • Child poverty rose from 16 percent in 2000 to 22 percent in 2011.
8. Since TANF began in 1997, the share of poor families receiving assistance has fallen in all states, and the difference among states has grown. In 1998, about half (53 percent) of poor families with children nationally received TANF cash assistance, compared with 28 percent in 2010. In 1998, poor families in California were three times more likely to receive cash assistance than families in Texas; by 2010, California poor families were 10 times more like to receive cash assistance than those in Texas, where TANF cash assistance went to just 7 out of 100 poor families with children.

Your site busted. Lol

"The Urban Institute is a Washington DC-based think tank that carries out economic and social policy research to "open minds, shape decisions, and offer solutions."[1] The institute receives funding from government contracts, foundations and private donors. The Urban Institute measures policy effects, compares options, shows which stakeholders get the most and least, tests conventional wisdom, reveals trends, and makes costs, benefits, and risks explicit.[2] The Urban Institutue is described as a "leading liberal think tank" by the Los Angeles Times[3]

You do realize what I've posted happens to be cold hard facts. Refute one of them.

The reason TANF recipients have fallen is because the kids from 1997 are now adults and they have created other agencies like AFDC, and WIC.

This is a very misleading study.

 

[David_42]

Important read.
Ten myth-busting facts about welfare

Unlike monthly jobs numbers, poverty numbers come out only once a year—and they’ll be rolling out on Tuesday. That means this is the time to talk about the 46.2 million living in poverty. And you can’t talk about poverty without talking about welfare, officially known as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.

It may come as a surprise, but TANF was never intended to be a comprehensive anti-poverty program. It was designed to be a temporary leg up, but its mission varies greatly from state to state.

Here are a few other facts that may surprise you:

1. States have no legal obligation to support poor families with cash. States have a lot more freedom to do what they want with this program than people realize. In the extreme, states could even decide to get rid of TANF altogether, as Alabama budget cuts threatened to do last year.
2. States are able to set their own rules about who gets TANF and how much, usually reflecting the state’s culture and philosophy about government’s role in helping the poor. Some states believe the poor shouldn’t get help from the government. Whether a family receives TANF assistance and how much they receive depends largely on the state where they live. For example, in Texas, fewer than 1 in 10 poor families receive assistance, compared with almost three out of four in California.
3. Not everyone who is poor gets welfare. The official poverty line is already so low that a family of three with any income over $1,500 a month is not officially poor. And even that is not poor enough to qualify for TANF. To qualify, you typically need to have income below half the poverty line; in some states, the income limit is much lower. Cash assistance reaches fewer than one in three poor families nationally (about 1.5 percent of the total population).
4. Reducing poverty is not one of TANF’s purposes. The amount families receive from TANF does not come close to lifting them out of poverty. The most a family could receive in the most generous state is still less than half the federal poverty line. A family of three would receive at most about $400 a month in the average state.
5. Even though TANF was intended to assist needy families and promote work, the program devotes relatively few resources to either purpose.
   • In 2010, only 28.8 percent of TANF funds nationally was spent on cash payments to needy families. Less than 8 percent goes to activities that help people find work (including job search, work subsidies, education and training, transportation, individual development accounts, and other work expenses, combined).
   • A whopping 63 percent is spent on other social service programs or child care, or the other two purposes of TANF: preventing out-of-wedlock pregnancies and encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.
6. The amount the federal government gives states for TANF has not changed since 1997. The federal government spends a total of $16.5 billion a year on TANF. This figure does not change with inflation, so it is worth less and less over time. States are obligated to contribute their own funds as well.
7. The program was not responsive to the recession or the recent rise in poverty. During the recession, the share of needy families receiving cash assistance fell. The number of families receiving cash assistance grew, but the number of poor families grew faster.
   • While unemployment rates doubled, the number of families receiving cash assistance grew by only 13 percent.
   • The poverty rate increased from 11 percent in 2000 to 15 percent in 2011.
   • Child poverty rose from 16 percent in 2000 to 22 percent in 2011.
8. Since TANF began in 1997, the share of poor families receiving assistance has fallen in all states, and the difference among states has grown. In 1998, about half (53 percent) of poor families with children nationally received TANF cash assistance, compared with 28 percent in 2010. In 1998, poor families in California were three times more likely to receive cash assistance than families in Texas; by 2010, California poor families were 10 times more like to receive cash assistance than those in Texas, where TANF cash assistance went to just 7 out of 100 poor families with children.

Your site busted. Lol

"The Urban Institute is a Washington DC-based think tank that carries out economic and social policy research to "open minds, shape decisions, and offer solutions."[1] The institute receives funding from government contracts, foundations and private donors. The Urban Institute measures policy effects, compares options, shows which stakeholders get the most and least, tests conventional wisdom, reveals trends, and makes costs, benefits, and risks explicit.[2] The Urban Institutue is described as a "leading liberal think tank" by the Los Angeles Times[3]

You do realize what I've posted happens to be cold hard facts. Refute one of them.

The reason TANF recipients have fallen is because the kids from 1997 are now adults and they have created other agencies like AFDC, and WIC.

This is a very misleading study.

Sure it is. I'm sure afdc and WIC account for all of the loss, amirite?

 

[The Rabbi]

Fromthe link:

The poverty rate increased from 11 percent in 2000 to 15 percent in 2011.

So poverty increased despite (because of) 8 years of Democrat rule.
Democrat policies fail to lift people out of poverty. They fail every time.