Skip to main content

View Diary: My father "disowns" my husband because he was raised on welfare (300 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Your plan was already implemented. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tikkun, JVolvo, Onomastic

    It's called the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 (welfare reform). It must have been a good idea, because the Repukes really love it.

    •  I'm not talking about workforce development (0+ / 0-)

      I'm talking about creating a system that strengthens the safety net and empowers people to make concrete contributions to increase the sustainability and the livability of our neighborhoods.

      In this type of system there doesn't need to be cut off periods for unemployment.  There doesn't have to be overly strict rules for going on disability where 75 percent of the people are rejected.  And the reason is that both the unemployed and people with disabilities would be eligible for a BIG.  And one of the requirements for BIG would be to sign up and contribute in some manner in your local community.  Like I said, what that would entail (how many hours, what type of work, etc.) would largely depend on the type of assistance and the needs of your local community.

      Any constructive criticism is welcomed.

      We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

      by theotherside on Wed Aug 07, 2013 at 11:45:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think your heart may be in the right place, (9+ / 0-)

        but until you're in the trenches, you don't realize that your easy fix isn't easy at all. As someone else said, many of the jobs you suggest are paying jobs that other people are supporting their families with. And you sound remarkably like Newt Gingrich.

        I worked at the welfare office for 6 years. I quit about 6 months before welfare reform was passed. I then worked for NM Works, the government grant that helped welfare recipients meet the work requirements under welfare reform. In the late '90's the economy was booming and it was still difficult to get people sufficient education and training to become gainfully employed. Half of the women tried to work, and the other half met their work requirement by baby sitting for the working group. Many, if not most, hadn't finished high school, and had no work experience. When their children were sick, nobody would care for them because they didn't want the other children to get sick also. Many took out student loans, and never finished their studies, for various reasons. It was a mess then. And it's an even bigger mess now, as the economy can't even support those who worked before the economy crashed.

        Until (if) the country's wealth is more fairly distributed, your solutions just make people's lives much more difficult and frightening.

        •  Yes and yes (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          betterdemsonly

          It seems clear that someone who is able to work should be given all needed assistance so that working makes more sense for them than avoiding work. If this means subsidies, added benefits, free childcare, free transportation, etc then we should do that. Fiscally, it makes more sense to pay a bit to supplement the wages of a low wage worker than to pay the entire freight for their sustenance. In addition, it helps the economy by pumping more money into the pool. But, forcing someone to work sounds a bit questionable to me. Some cannot work (physical and mental disabilities are common reasons) and for some the equation will simply never balance.

          Of course, if we had a true living wage then most of this would be moot.

          •  When you say "full freight" (10+ / 0-)

            let me give you this one bit of information. When the AFDC program was dissolved in favor of TANF (under welfare reform), it was mentioned that the entire AFDC national program made up 1% of the federal budget. For 1% of the budget, it sure gets a lot of attention. Why? Because it turns people against people.

          •  One thing I can't understand is how people who (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Onomastic, betterdemsonly

            are so against welfare and the idea that "their" tax dollars are used to help the poor and disabled are perfectly fine with subsidizing corporations like Walmart that rake in billions in profit yet pay their workers so little that they're forced to seek public assistance in one way or another.

          •  I actually work in the disability community (0+ / 0-)

            with a focus on creating employment opportunities for people with disabilities.  I can assure you that the overwhelming majority of PWD have skills and the desire to work.  But they most often aren't given a chance.

            Yes, they sometimes need reasonable accomodations.  Yes, they need to have their work tailored to their abilities.  But the percentage of PWD that cannot contribute anything to help their fellow man is really low.  If PWD can be productive members of society there is every reason to believe that most other people can also help out.

            I would argue that we are all in this together and that everyone has something to contribute.  We should create systems that encourage added value creation instead of systems that encourage not working.  In addition, the added value should be of direct benefit to the most disadvantaged in society.   Alas, many people continue to see this through a left-right prism and so, as I said before, the left wing will reject it and the right wing will reject it.  One because it isn't socialist enough and the other because it is too "socialist".

            I, on the other hand, think that it is far better than the status quo but I no doubt underestimate the difficulty in getting such a system up and running.

            We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

            by theotherside on Thu Aug 08, 2013 at 05:02:26 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site