The Demise of the Welfare Queen

[Lonestar_logic]

'People think everyone who is poor gets welfare, and it's just not true'; How the myth of the welfare queen died - In Plain Sight

Welfare has not been the same since the mid-1990s, when the old program, called Aid to Families with Dependent Children, was replaced by TANF. The new program requires that recipients do 20 to 30 hours a week of work-related activities, such as job hunting or community service, among other stipulations.

Most states also only allow adults to collect TANF for a maximum of five years over the course of their lifetime, or less.

A person working a full-time, minimum wage job would take home $15,080 a year. That’s below the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2012 poverty threshold for a family of one adult and two children under 18.

Most experts say that even in a low-wage job, a single mother is better off financially than on welfare because welfare payments are so low. In July 2011, the maximum monthly TANF payment for a family of three ranged from $170 to $923 a month, depending on the state, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Obama ended the work requirements by executive order.

No he didn't.

He granted temporary waivers because of the poor work environment. How do you tell someone they can't get welfare unless they are working and then have no jobs?

What would you do? Have them fired from their jobs and then cancel their welfare benefit for not working?

The Obama administration is waiving the federal requirement that ensures a portion of able-bodied TANF recipients must engage in work activities. It is replacing that requirement with a standard that shows that the pre-reform welfare program was successful and the post-reform program a failure.

the Obama administration has jettisoned the law’s work requirements, asserting that, in the future, no state will be required to follow them.

Source: Washington Post

 

[Lonestar_logic]

'People think everyone who is poor gets welfare, and it's just not true'; How the myth of the welfare queen died - In Plain Sight

Welfare has not been the same since the mid-1990s, when the old program, called Aid to Families with Dependent Children, was replaced by TANF. The new program requires that recipients do 20 to 30 hours a week of work-related activities, such as job hunting or community service, among other stipulations.

Most states also only allow adults to collect TANF for a maximum of five years over the course of their lifetime, or less.

A person working a full-time, minimum wage job would take home $15,080 a year. That’s below the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2012 poverty threshold for a family of one adult and two children under 18.

Most experts say that even in a low-wage job, a single mother is better off financially than on welfare because welfare payments are so low. In July 2011, the maximum monthly TANF payment for a family of three ranged from $170 to $923 a month, depending on the state, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Obama ended the work requirements by executive order.

False -- he allowed states to adjust the requirements to work better with their state programs -- Republican and Dem Governors requested the exemption to better manage their own programs.

And Obama gave it them.

And Fox lied about it and spun into the lie you told in your post.

Bullshit.

See link above!

 

[ClosedCaption]

Study: welfare pays more than work in most states | The Daily Caller

“The current welfare system provides such a high level of benefits that it acts as a disincentive for work,” reads the study. “Welfare currently pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35 states, even after accounting for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and in 13 states it pays more than $15 per hour.


”Welfare recipients in Hawaii get the most benefits, according to Tanner, at $29.13 per hour — or $60,590 pre-tax income annually. However, the state’s minimum wage is only $7.25 per hour, according to the Labor Department. Hawaiians on welfare also earn 167 percent of the median salary in the state, which is only $36,275.

Tell me the system is not fucked up!

I'm calling bullshit on this

Edit: just went to the link and it provided nothing as evidence unless "say so" is acceptable

Find me something that proves it is wrong. Provide evidence of your claim. Then we'll talk. You idiotic liberals are quick to claim what's posted is a lie, but you are slow in producing an honest rebuttal. Grow fucking up!

You didn't read my post? There was no links but someone else posted it. If you went to the link in the OP you'd know instead of crying about it

 

[Sunshine]

'People think everyone who is poor gets welfare, and it's just not true'; How the myth of the welfare queen died - In Plain Sight

Welfare has not been the same since the mid-1990s, when the old program, called Aid to Families with Dependent Children, was replaced by TANF. The new program requires that recipients do 20 to 30 hours a week of work-related activities, such as job hunting or community service, among other stipulations.

Most states also only allow adults to collect TANF for a maximum of five years over the course of their lifetime, or less.

A person working a full-time, minimum wage job would take home $15,080 a year. That’s below the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2012 poverty threshold for a family of one adult and two children under 18.

Most experts say that even in a low-wage job, a single mother is better off financially than on welfare because welfare payments are so low. In July 2011, the maximum monthly TANF payment for a family of three ranged from $170 to $923 a month, depending on the state, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

One of those 'community service' jobs is picking up trash around the HUD housing project where they live, which they should be doing anyway without having to have it mandated.

 

[ClosedCaption]

You have to dig a little deeper. The Cato study seems well-researched and supported, and it indicates exactly what the Daily Caller printed. In fact, the quote “Welfare currently pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35 states, even after accounting for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and in 13 states it pays more than $15 per hour” was taken directly from the study itself. Their “profile” household (single mother with two minor children) was assumed to be eligible for the following benefits: TANF, SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), Housing Assistance, Medicaid, WIC (Women, Infants, and Children Program), LIHEAP (Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program), and TEFAP (The Emergency Food Assistance Program). These were compared on an after-tax basis and included credits like the earned income credit for workers. The highest available welfare benefit was available in Hawaii ($49,175; pretax wage equivalent $60,590) for those programs; in middle of the list at number 25 was Michigan ($28,872; pretax wage equivalent $26,430) with the lowest being Mississippi ($16,984; pretax wage equivalent $11,830). At a minimum wage of $7.25, that mother would earn just over $15,000 and would likely end up with about $21,000 after credits.
"Therefore, it seems likely that it will continue to be difficult to move individuals from welfare to work as long as the level of welfare benefits makes the choice not to work a rational alternative."


More: The Work versus Welfare Trade-Off: 2013 | Cato Institute

Cool because it wasnt listed there but that is a pretty big dam assumption that someone would qual for ALL that stuff at the same time. In fact the person would have to be dirt poor FIRST to qualify (and that doesnt mean they would still qualify for everything on this list)

So the question is: Are you saying that someone would risk being dam near homeless for the CHANCE to qualify for some of these programs?

Because the story pretends that someone wouldnt work on purpose to qual for these benefits and a mother with 2 children most likely wouldnt risk that much or take that big of a gamble for a possibility.

You're right; likely not all recipients will qualify for all benefits, and the study addresses this:

Critics of Cato’s 1995 study pointed out, correctly, that not all welfare recipients actually receive all the benefits to which they are entitled. That is particularly true of housing benefits, as we have discussed above. Similar arguments can be made regarding utilities assistance, WIC, and free commodities. Still, with the exception of housing in states with less than a 10 percent participation rate, we believe it is proper to include the full package of benefits in our calculations because at least some recipients in every state do receive them. Moreover, the likelihood of receiving those additional benefits is primarily a function of the length of a family’s stay on welfare. That means that hard-core welfare recipients, who spend long periods on welfare, are likely to be receiving those benefits.

Still, since not every observer will agree with our approach, we offer Table 16, which shows the value of a welfare benefits package that includes only those benefits received by nearly all welfare recipients: TANF, SNAP, and Medicaid. Even with this limited array of benefits, welfare exceeds the value of a minimum-wage job in eight states.

As far as whether someone would risk being "dam near homeless", that isn't the issue, nor is the Cato Institute trying to make that case. The issue is how to move welfare recipients out from public assistance to work when they will not benefit financially for doing so, not to prevent someone from quitting their job in an effort to get ON welfare.

Even with TANF, SNAP and Medicaid there is still a financial reason for getting off welfare. That only addresses food and healthcare. If someone was able to wear food then that would be a good point. But those services don't provide money for other things.

Its a republican fantasy that someone would be content with food and healthcare and go against human nature to strive for better. Are there exceptions? Sure. But repubs are presenting this as a rule.

Additionally NEARLY ALL of the people who receive welfare WORK RIGHT NOW! Another Repub fallacy that welfare recipients just sit home and collect it...if you look at the stats. That is wrong...flat out

 

[BillyV]

Cool because it wasnt listed there but that is a pretty big dam assumption that someone would qual for ALL that stuff at the same time. In fact the person would have to be dirt poor FIRST to qualify (and that doesnt mean they would still qualify for everything on this list)

So the question is: Are you saying that someone would risk being dam near homeless for the CHANCE to qualify for some of these programs?

Because the story pretends that someone wouldnt work on purpose to qual for these benefits and a mother with 2 children most likely wouldnt risk that much or take that big of a gamble for a possibility.

You're right; likely not all recipients will qualify for all benefits, and the study addresses this:

Critics of Cato’s 1995 study pointed out, correctly, that not all welfare recipients actually receive all the benefits to which they are entitled. That is particularly true of housing benefits, as we have discussed above. Similar arguments can be made regarding utilities assistance, WIC, and free commodities. Still, with the exception of housing in states with less than a 10 percent participation rate, we believe it is proper to include the full package of benefits in our calculations because at least some recipients in every state do receive them. Moreover, the likelihood of receiving those additional benefits is primarily a function of the length of a family’s stay on welfare. That means that hard-core welfare recipients, who spend long periods on welfare, are likely to be receiving those benefits.

Still, since not every observer will agree with our approach, we offer Table 16, which shows the value of a welfare benefits package that includes only those benefits received by nearly all welfare recipients: TANF, SNAP, and Medicaid. Even with this limited array of benefits, welfare exceeds the value of a minimum-wage job in eight states.

As far as whether someone would risk being "dam near homeless", that isn't the issue, nor is the Cato Institute trying to make that case. The issue is how to move welfare recipients out from public assistance to work when they will not benefit financially for doing so, not to prevent someone from quitting their job in an effort to get ON welfare.

Even with TANF, SNAP and Medicaid there is still a financial reason for getting off welfare. That only addresses food and healthcare. If someone was able to wear food then that would be a good point. But those services don't provide money for other things.

Its a republican fantasy that someone would be content with food and healthcare and go against human nature to strive for better. Are there exceptions? Sure. But repubs are presenting this as a rule.

Additionally NEARLY ALL of the people who receive welfare WORK RIGHT NOW! Another Repub fallacy that welfare recipients just sit home and collect it...if you look at the stats. That is wrong...flat out

Ummm....I'm pretty sure TANF is a cash-benefit program that can be spent for clothes, housing, etc.

 

[ClosedCaption]

You're right; likely not all recipients will qualify for all benefits, and the study addresses this:



As far as whether someone would risk being "dam near homeless", that isn't the issue, nor is the Cato Institute trying to make that case. The issue is how to move welfare recipients out from public assistance to work when they will not benefit financially for doing so, not to prevent someone from quitting their job in an effort to get ON welfare.

Even with TANF, SNAP and Medicaid there is still a financial reason for getting off welfare. That only addresses food and healthcare. If someone was able to wear food then that would be a good point. But those services don't provide money for other things.

Its a republican fantasy that someone would be content with food and healthcare and go against human nature to strive for better. Are there exceptions? Sure. But repubs are presenting this as a rule.

Additionally NEARLY ALL of the people who receive welfare WORK RIGHT NOW! Another Repub fallacy that welfare recipients just sit home and collect it...if you look at the stats. That is wrong...flat out

Ummm....I'm pretty sure TANF is a cash-benefit program that can be spent for clothes, housing, etc.

My bad lol

Yeah, you're right. I actually appreciate the discussion here and how you lay out more facts and no insults.

But most of the people on welfare are employees. So this repub idea that welfare people are just sitting home flies in the face of reality. Its some sort of fantasy that they tell themselves in order to confirm their already held bias

 

[bitterlyclingin]

Not gonna happen soon, sonny, despite your aspirations, and despite the good it would do for the economy, for Comrade Barack has another purpose in mind, and for that he needs the Welfare Queen's votes, as well as the vote's of the bros she bestows her favors on at night and the random other Queens, like wannabe Queen Bradley Manning and his ilk.

Welfare Queen: ?Who Would Want To Work In America? This Is What The Taxpayers Are Paying For?? | Weasel Zippers

Barack Obama came into office with the intention of elevating the status of Islam in the world, hoping to elevate Islam to a co equal status militarily with the United States and the rest of the Christian Society, a position that Obama knows would bring the World Wide islamic Caliphate into being in a short period of time. To do that he needed to stay in power long enough to accomplish his goal of adequately debilitating the United States to the point where Islam could subdue it bringing about the Caliphate. Besides surrounding himself with totalitarian thugs like CIA Director John Brennan and Eric Holder and gross incompetents like Chuck Hagel and John Kerry, he needs to pull the wool over the eyes of the majority of the electorate long enough, hence the free Obama phones, the cash giveaways in the Detroits Cobo Arena, and the cultivation of the nationwide prevailing attitude of "I'm not here looking for a job, I'm just here to get me some Obamabucks", the "He's going to pay for my groceries", and the "I'm never going to have to pay for my gasoline again" among his supporters. Just this morning Fox and friends had a news item on a program under consideration to provide financial assistance for low income and indigent folks enabling them to buy their 'Pot' at government expense. How good can it get under Obama with programs like these? Caligula's standing on the tops of Rome's tallest buildings and flinging fistfuls of gold coins onto the mobs of Roman citizenry frantically milling around on the streets below is going to look like the acts of piker historically in comparison. Its all about Obama openly enabling the Caliphate while America stands there with its mouth open and its eyes somehow unseeing. The Mullahs will deal with the Welfare Queens afterwards, after they finish with the Bradley Manning Queens.