House Nears Vote on Welfare Rules

Newsday ^ | May 16, 2002 | LAURA MECKLER

[tdadams]

Republicans pushed for stricter welfare rules in House debate Thursday, saying massive changes made in 1996 marked a stunning success that can be improved upon if even more people are pressed into the work force.

"When you reform such a massive program as welfare as we did in 1996 there are some people who may fall through the cracks," said Rep. Jennifer Dunn, R-Wash.

[tdadams]

Democrats just can't stand it when a Republican backed law works so beautifully and as designed. Democrats' dire warnings all proved false, as we knew they would, and they're just seething that they have no credibility to stop the Republicans from further improving the welfare system. I love it.

It's anecdotes like this that make me want to repeal all welfare altogether... I had to suffer through standing in line at the grocery store behind some 30-something mother in Daisy Duke cutoffs and flip flops buying cigarettes and berating the clerk for not letting her get cash back after using her EBT card. She told the clerk "They always give me cash when I shop at XXXXXX. The guy in front of me got cash back." The clerk (who was probably fired for being so bold as to tell the truth) replied, "He used a debit card... that's his own money."

[rockfish59]

That's his own money!

if the dummycrats had their way, they'd install welfare machines at 7-11!

[onedoug]

After some point, at least, welfare facilitates the ongoing communisation of America.

[bloggerjohn]

Um, but is it the best timing to "press more people into the workforce" when unemployment is rising? This should have been pushed when unemployment was at an all-time low.

[tdadams]

That's a catch-22. Talk to a good economics professor. The reason that unemployment seems to be rising is a result of how unemployment figures are calculated. When the economy was supposedly in a recession, you had a lot of people who were staying out of the job market (choosing to be stay-at-home moms, going to graduate school, etc.). Those people were not tallied as job-seekers. Now that the economy is improving and people are optimistic about their prospects, more people are looking to get back in the workforce.

So, unemployed and not seeking = low unemployment figure.
Unemployed and newly seeking = rising unemployment figure.

It may also be that the rise in unemployment is a direct result of those coming to the statutory end of their welfare benefits.

[onedoug]

If one has the desire to work, and to improve one's self in the pursuit of more meaningful and/or lucrative work,
then that person will more likely "succeed" to those ends.

If not, he or she, won't.

I believe it's really that simple.

[onedoug]

...Nor do continuing and increasing taxes help.

[glockmeister40]

I think STABLE FAMILIES with a stay at home mom are the key to welfare reform. Here's how it works: Moms leave the workforce and concentrate on raising the kids. This tightens the job market and raises salaries. Dads work full time to support their families. The result: well- raised kids with NO NEED FOR DAY CARE.

PS: deport all illegals and stop immigration too. This will tighten the job market also and help dads get good, family wage jobs. American jobs are for American citizens.

[bandlength]

that would be LOVELY. however, what about people like me? i'm divorced with two kids. i work full-time (normally when i'm not unemployed). i don't have a boyfriend, new husband or intended (for religious reasons).

ex-hubby doesn't pay child support nor does he work. why? because he's been on welfare for the last 14 years as a single person. he's an alcoholic and ALWAYS finds enough money for booze and ciggies. oh yes, and he has a "bad knee..." there's NO hope of ever seeing him work let alone making a decent wage or for me to ever see any child support.