Welfare reform of 1996 abolished?

[ksbluesfan]

Is this true, or more spin? I know it's more than a year old, but it seems to be the topic of discussion on talk radio lately.

Stimulus Bill Abolishes Welfare Reform and Adds New Welfare Spending (http://www.heritage.org/research/welfare/wm2287.cfm)


A major public policy success, welfare reform in the mid-1990s led to a dramatic reduction in welfare dependency and child poverty. This successful reform, however is now in jeopardy: Little-noted provisions in the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate stimulus bills actually abolish this historic reform. In addition, the stimulus bills will add nearly $800 billion in new means-tested welfare spending over the next decade. This new spending amounts to around $22,500 for every poor person in the U.S. The cost of the new welfare spending amounts, on average, to over $10,000 for each family paying income tax.
...snip...


To me, it looks like they increased the money that could be spent on welfare in anticipation of a greater demand for those programs. So many people lost their jobs, it's bound to put a greater demand on social programs. It also appears to be temporary, but I could be wrong.

If this was legit, I'd expect Republicans to be screaming bloody murder about it. Other than right wing think tanks and talk radio, I haven't heard much about it.

I didn't realize there was a House bill and a Senate bill. I thought both houses had to approve the same bill.

Here are some details from Wikipedia. Their picture isn't as bleak, but it's still confusing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009

[Dancing David]

It doesn't look like much of an issue.
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=strict&q=welfare+reform+ARARA+2009+2009&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&fp=a73b11f867dbecea

[samm]

The only reason you do not see videos today of people standing in long soup lines (like newsreels from the 1930s) is that today we have food stamps and unemployment insurance. This does not imply that food stamps and UI are solving the problem, only that they are effective at hiding the depression.

Lawmakers are scared. Lawmakers who might have a clue are scared ****less. The only solution they see is to cling to the theory that if you can get everyone to think things aren't so bad, then people will spend money and companies will hire.

So, if people stop getting food stamps and UI, the illusion fails. Hence the lack of real opposition.

(As for any republican fundamental philosophies, the final nail in that coffin was GWB's admission that "those with" have an obligation to "those without" in his rhetoric supporting the invasion of Iraq. I never understood why the Dems didn't and don't cheer him.)

[leftysergeant]

The only reason you do not see videos today of people standing in long soup lines (like newsreels from the 1930s) is that today we have food stamps and unemployment insurance. This does not imply that food stamps and UI are solving the problem, only that they are effective at hiding the depression.

That so many are on some form of assistance makes it clear to most people that something is wrong. That assistance is available does, to some extent, allieviate the suffering while the working class waits for the whiney investor-class-owned lawmakers to figure out that they have to start putting the health of the nation ahead of the wealth of the privileged classes.

Lawmakers are scared. Lawmakers who might have a clue are scared ****less. The only solution they see is to cling to the theory that if you can get everyone to think things aren't so bad, then people will spend money and companies will hire.

To not dosomething to relieve the suffering of the working class would just starve them into submission as the investor class makes even more absurd demands on the few who still have jobs. Small businesses would go belly-up or be gobbled up by the big-boxes. The relief programs help keep the wealth in circulation. The problem in America right now is not a lack of wealth, but its migration upward into fewer and fewer hands. Until that problem can be solved, not having that safety net would creatre horrendous suffering in the midst of unearned opulence.

Part of the problem is about to correct itself, anyway, as the Bush tax cuts sunset. Maybe the up-tick in revenue, thus increased infrastructure programs will help enough that lawmakers realize what a mistake the Reagan tax cuts were as well and re-adjust the burden of taxation upward as it should be.

Cutting welfare programs only makes sense when there is ecconomic growth.

(As for any republican fundamental philosophies, the final nail in that coffin was GWB's admission that "those with" have an obligation to "those without" in his rhetoric supporting the invasion of Iraq. I never understood why the Dems didn't and don't cheer him.)

Because he was just using it cynically as an excuse to commit a war crime.