Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"....that's all you have to offer apparently."
On the contrary, you lying cur.
What I have, and the key difference between us, is that I have a proprietary pride in veracity.
Where's your better plan? What is your plan to deal with the problem created by poor people losing their benefits when they take a job?
The 1996 Welfare Reform....the one that Obama eviscerated.
"Obama kills welfare reform
Determined to destroy Bill Clintons signature achievement, President Obamas administration has opened a loophole in the 1996 welfare reform legislation big enough to make the law ineffective. Its work requirement the central feature of the legislation has been diluted beyond recognition by the bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)."
Obama kills welfare reform | TheHill
Where's your better plan? What is your plan to deal with the problem created by poor people losing their benefits when they take a job?
The 1996 Welfare Reform....the one that Obama eviscerated.
"Obama kills welfare reform
Determined to destroy Bill Clintons signature achievement, President Obamas administration has opened a loophole in the 1996 welfare reform legislation big enough to make the law ineffective. Its work requirement the central feature of the legislation has been diluted beyond recognition by the bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)."
Obama kills welfare reform | TheHill
Could you please stick to the topic you started. How do you deal with the problem you cited as the reason 'liberals' keep people poor,
the problem of losing benefits when you start working and make more money?
Is it just about forcing people into jobs on threat of losing their benefits? That just turns the non-working poor into the working poor.
Let me tell you what the only real and relevant problem is:
not enough good paying jobs for the ordinary folk.
What are the economic advantages the left says make socail programs pay off to society? I know they say there is a trade off from less taxes. And the money spent helps us out. In what ways?
What are the economic advantages the left says make socail programs pay off to society? I know they say there is a trade off from less taxes. And the money spent helps us out. In what ways?
Lower crime rates and a less feeling of despair, which reduces suicides and saves the national fabric from rendering the populace into anarchy..
Jesus says it's a good deal..
The 1996 Welfare Reform....the one that Obama eviscerated.
"Obama kills welfare reform
Determined to destroy Bill Clinton’s signature achievement, President Obama’s administration has opened a loophole in the 1996 welfare reform legislation big enough to make the law ineffective. Its work requirement — the central feature of the legislation — has been diluted beyond recognition by the bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)."
Obama kills welfare reform | TheHill
Could you please stick to the topic you started. How do you deal with the problem you cited as the reason 'liberals' keep people poor,
the problem of losing benefits when you start working and make more money?
Is it just about forcing people into jobs on threat of losing their benefits? That just turns the non-working poor into the working poor.
Let me tell you what the only real and relevant problem is:
not enough good paying jobs for the ordinary folk.
I just answered you.
What...are you stupid???
Oh...right. Never mind.
Could you please stick to the topic you started. How do you deal with the problem you cited as the reason 'liberals' keep people poor,
the problem of losing benefits when you start working and make more money?
Is it just about forcing people into jobs on threat of losing their benefits? That just turns the non-working poor into the working poor.
Let me tell you what the only real and relevant problem is:
not enough good paying jobs for the ordinary folk.
I just answered you.
What...are you stupid???
Oh...right. Never mind.
No you didn't. See, this is your problem. You only pretend you can debate.
Here's the complete text of the 1996 Welfare reform act.
Cite where this bill solves the problem you cited in the OP.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ193/html/PLAW-104publ193.htm
I just answered you.
What...are you stupid???
Oh...right. Never mind.
No you didn't. See, this is your problem. You only pretend you can debate.
Here's the complete text of the 1996 Welfare reform act.
Cite where this bill solves the problem you cited in the OP.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ193/html/PLAW-104publ193.htm
Debate????
There is no debate. The result was clearly better than Liberal welfare policies.
Clearly.
You wrote "Where's your better plan?"
I wrote "the 1996 Welfare Reform."
The result of same:
"...the reform was shockingly successful, exceeding even the expectations of its most ardent supporters. The old AFDC rolls were reduced by two-thirds nationwide, even more in states that pushed work most aggressively, because the poor formerly on the program went to work, or married someone working. Because of all this renewed work effort, the total income of these low income families formerly on welfare increased by about 25% over this period, as Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution reports in his 2006 book evaluating the 1996 welfare reforms, Work Over Welfare.
.... child poverty declined every year, falling by 2000 to levels not seen since 1978. y 2000, the poverty rate of black children was the lowest it had ever been. The percentage of families in deep poverty, defined as half the poverty level also declined until 2000, falling about 35% during the period, ...
This decline in poverty was widespread across demographic groups, and the decline was caused by increased employment and earnings of females headed families. Based on total income, poverty among these female headed households declined by one-third, which meant that nearly 4.2 million single mothers and children climbed out of poverty. Haskins cites a study by the liberal Isabel Sawhill of the Urban Institute and Paul Jargowsky concluding,
So great was the decline in poverty that the number of neighborhoods with concentrated poverty fell precipitously, as did the number of neighborhoods classified as underclass because of the concentration of poverty and the high frequency of problems such as school dropout, female headed families, welfare dependency, and labor force dropout by adult males.
We Can Liberate The Poor From Poverty In America, Forever - Forbes
There is no debate about this issue.
You denying same simply means you're lying.
I just answered you.
What...are you stupid???
Oh...right. Never mind.
No you didn't. See, this is your problem. You only pretend you can debate.
Here's the complete text of the 1996 Welfare reform act.
Cite where this bill solves the problem you cited in the OP.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ193/html/PLAW-104publ193.htm
Debate????
There is no debate. The result was clearly better than Liberal welfare policies.
Clearly.
You wrote "Where's your better plan?"
I wrote "the 1996 Welfare Reform."
The result of same:
"...the reform was shockingly successful, exceeding even the expectations of its most ardent supporters. The old AFDC rolls were reduced by two-thirds nationwide, even more in states that pushed work most aggressively, because the poor formerly on the program went to work, or married someone working. Because of all this renewed work effort, the total income of these low income families formerly on welfare increased by about 25% over this period, as Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution reports in his 2006 book evaluating the 1996 welfare reforms, Work Over Welfare.
.... child poverty declined every year, falling by 2000 to levels not seen since 1978. y 2000, the poverty rate of black children was the lowest it had ever been. The percentage of families in deep poverty, defined as half the poverty level also declined until 2000, falling about 35% during the period, ...
This decline in poverty was widespread across demographic groups, and the decline was caused by increased employment and earnings of females headed families. Based on total income, poverty among these female headed households declined by one-third, which meant that nearly 4.2 million single mothers and children climbed out of poverty. Haskins cites a study by the liberal Isabel Sawhill of the Urban Institute and Paul Jargowsky concluding,
So great was the decline in poverty that the number of neighborhoods with concentrated poverty fell precipitously, as did the number of neighborhoods classified as underclass because of the concentration of poverty and the high frequency of problems such as school dropout, female headed families, welfare dependency, and labor force dropout by adult males.
We Can Liberate The Poor From Poverty In America, Forever - Forbes
There is no debate about this issue.
You denying same simply means you're lying.
This is why conservatives can't win. All they do is bitch about the imperfections of liberalism.
They have nothing to offer in its place that will make things any better.
No you didn't. See, this is your problem. You only pretend you can debate.
Here's the complete text of the 1996 Welfare reform act.
Cite where this bill solves the problem you cited in the OP.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ193/html/PLAW-104publ193.htm
Debate????
There is no debate. The result was clearly better than Liberal welfare policies.
Clearly.
You wrote "Where's your better plan?"
I wrote "the 1996 Welfare Reform."
The result of same:
"...the reform was shockingly successful, exceeding even the expectations of its most ardent supporters. The old AFDC rolls were reduced by two-thirds nationwide, even more in states that pushed work most aggressively, because the poor formerly on the program went to work, or married someone working. Because of all this renewed work effort, the total income of these low income families formerly on welfare increased by about 25% over this period, as Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution reports in his 2006 book evaluating the 1996 welfare reforms, Work Over Welfare.
.... child poverty declined every year, falling by 2000 to levels not seen since 1978. y 2000, the poverty rate of black children was the lowest it had ever been. The percentage of families in deep poverty, defined as half the poverty level also declined until 2000, falling about 35% during the period, ...
This decline in poverty was widespread across demographic groups, and the decline was caused by increased employment and earnings of females headed families. Based on total income, poverty among these female headed households declined by one-third, which meant that nearly 4.2 million single mothers and children climbed out of poverty. Haskins cites a study by the liberal Isabel Sawhill of the Urban Institute and Paul Jargowsky concluding,
So great was the decline in poverty that the number of neighborhoods with concentrated poverty fell precipitously, as did the number of neighborhoods classified as underclass because of the concentration of poverty and the high frequency of problems such as school dropout, female headed families, welfare dependency, and labor force dropout by adult males.
We Can Liberate The Poor From Poverty In America, Forever - Forbes
There is no debate about this issue.
You denying same simply means you're lying.
I guess once again I have to remind you what you claimed in the OP:
"1. "If increasing your income by $10,000 a year would cause you to lose $15,000 worth of government benefits, would you do it? That is more than the equivalent of a 100 percent tax rate on income. Even millionaires and billionaires don't pay that high a tax rate.
a. ...the eligibility rules create a very high cost to individuals who try to rise by getting a job and earning their own money.
b. ....someone who is receiving multiple government-provided benefits -- housing subsidies, food subsidies, etc. -- to lose more in benefits than they gain in income, if they decide to take a legitimate and visible job."
What's your plan, specifically, to prevent that from happening?
This is why conservatives can't win. All they do is bitch about the imperfections of liberalism.
They have nothing to offer in its place that will make things any better.
"If any liberal reform had been as wildly successful as the 1996 welfare reforms spearheaded by then House Speaker Newt Gingrich, every schoolchild in America would have been forced to memorize the details by now."
We Can Liberate The Poor From Poverty In America, Forever - Forbes
This is why conservatives can't win. All they do is bitch about the imperfections of liberalism.
They have nothing to offer in its place that will make things any better.
Nah, I love liberalism - it's you Authoritarian Leftists that I can't stand.
Debate????
There is no debate. The result was clearly better than Liberal welfare policies.
Clearly.
You wrote "Where's your better plan?"
I wrote "the 1996 Welfare Reform."
The result of same:
"...the reform was shockingly successful, exceeding even the expectations of its most ardent supporters. The old AFDC rolls were reduced by two-thirds nationwide, even more in states that pushed work most aggressively, because the poor formerly on the program went to work, or married someone working. Because of all this renewed work effort, the total income of these low income families formerly on welfare increased by about 25% over this period, as Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution reports in his 2006 book evaluating the 1996 welfare reforms, Work Over Welfare.
.... child poverty declined every year, falling by 2000 to levels not seen since 1978. y 2000, the poverty rate of black children was the lowest it had ever been. The percentage of families in deep poverty, defined as half the poverty level also declined until 2000, falling about 35% during the period, ...
This decline in poverty was widespread across demographic groups, and the decline was caused by increased employment and earnings of females headed families. Based on total income, poverty among these female headed households declined by one-third, which meant that nearly 4.2 million single mothers and children climbed out of poverty. Haskins cites a study by the liberal Isabel Sawhill of the Urban Institute and Paul Jargowsky concluding,
So great was the decline in poverty that the number of neighborhoods with concentrated poverty fell precipitously, as did the number of neighborhoods classified as underclass because of the concentration of poverty and the high frequency of problems such as school dropout, female headed families, welfare dependency, and labor force dropout by adult males.
We Can Liberate The Poor From Poverty In America, Forever - Forbes
There is no debate about this issue.
You denying same simply means you're lying.
I guess once again I have to remind you what you claimed in the OP:
"1. "If increasing your income by $10,000 a year would cause you to lose $15,000 worth of government benefits, would you do it? That is more than the equivalent of a 100 percent tax rate on income. Even millionaires and billionaires don't pay that high a tax rate.
a. ...the eligibility rules create a very high cost to individuals who try to rise by getting a job and earning their own money.
b. ....someone who is receiving multiple government-provided benefits -- housing subsidies, food subsidies, etc. -- to lose more in benefits than they gain in income, if they decide to take a legitimate and visible job."
What's your plan, specifically, to prevent that from happening?
How about they get a fucking job! I know HARD WORK, is NOT in the liberal vernacular, but it's worked for America through the 1950's! Maybe 2 jobs, since Obama has cut FULL TIME down to 29 hours.... ever wonder why the democrats are pushing min. wage increase, so you can ALMOST make what you did working 40 hours.... of course, no mention of the UNION CONTRACTS tied to min. wage increases, or the cost of all goods and services going through the roof!
I guess once again I have to remind you what you claimed in the OP:
"1. "If increasing your income by $10,000 a year would cause you to lose $15,000 worth of government benefits, would you do it? That is more than the equivalent of a 100 percent tax rate on income. Even millionaires and billionaires don't pay that high a tax rate.
a. ...the eligibility rules create a very high cost to individuals who try to rise by getting a job and earning their own money.
b. ....someone who is receiving multiple government-provided benefits -- housing subsidies, food subsidies, etc. -- to lose more in benefits than they gain in income, if they decide to take a legitimate and visible job."
What's your plan, specifically, to prevent that from happening?
How about they get a fucking job! I know HARD WORK, is NOT in the liberal vernacular, but it's worked for America through the 1950's! Maybe 2 jobs, since Obama has cut FULL TIME down to 29 hours.... ever wonder why the democrats are pushing min. wage increase, so you can ALMOST make what you did working 40 hours.... of course, no mention of the UNION CONTRACTS tied to min. wage increases, or the cost of all goods and services going through the roof!
That's not a plan. What's your plan? Why would conservatives make life better for the poor,
if conservatives were in power?
Gee, I don't know.Not only do Liberal policies not alleviate poverty.....they increase it!
And Thomas Sowell explains it as no one else can!
1. "If increasing your income by $10,000 a year would cause you to lose $15,000 worth of government benefits, would you do it? That is more than the equivalent of a 100 percent tax rate on income. Even millionaires and billionaires don't pay that high a tax rate.
.
Then tell us how the conservatives/Republicans would fix that.
This is why conservatives can't win. All they do is bitch about the imperfections of liberalism.
They have nothing to offer in its place that will make things any better.
