- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
search
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Special Report
New Republican Opportunity: Welfare Reform
Sweeping, historic, welfare reforms were enacted in 1996, led by the Republican congressional majorities at the time, with strong, bipartisan support. The reforms involved the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children program (AFDC), originally adopted during the New Deal. The federal funds for the program were sent back to each state with the funds to be used for a new welfare program designed by each state based on mandatory work for the able bodied.
Sweeping, Historic Success
Before the reforms, the federal AFDC funds for each state
were provided through a matching formula. The more spent by each
state for AFDC, the more federal matching funds were paid to each
state. So the states had an incentive to sign up more and more
AFDC recipients, for each new recipient effectively brought more
federal funds to the state. As a result, before the 1996 reforms,
the AFDC rolls grew and grew, in both good economic times and
bad, apart from state AFDC experiments that began to implement
the fundamental changes.
The 1996 reforms fundamentally changed federal AFDC financing to end the matching funding. Instead, each state was provided a fixed, finite federal block grant for AFDC that did not change with the amount of state AFDC spending. As a result, if the new AFDC program designed by a state cost less, because the state's program was more effective in moving recipients off of welfare and into work, the state would keep the net savings for other uses. But if the costs of a state's program continued to increase, the state would have to finance the extra costs entirely itself.
These reforms naturally revolutionized the incentives faced by the states, and the results of the old state AFDC program, now renamed Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Instead of federal matching funds inducing the states to sign up more and more AFDC recipients, the states now faced incentives to move AFDC/TANF recipients from welfare to work as quickly as possible, to save money for each state. As a result, states across the country implemented innovative, aggressive, revolutionary reforms to lead recipients from welfare dependency into real work and real jobs.
The results were truly spectacular. The old AFDC welfare rolls declined by a shocking 60% across the country! The former recipients who now moved into work enjoyed an increase in their income over time through real earnings from real jobs. Child poverty in America declined as a result. Federal spending on AFDC/TANF remained flat for a dozen years with no increase, resulting in enormous savings in federal spending by avoiding the increases that would have otherwise occurred under the old system.
The new system changed incentives for recipients as well, because they now faced real work requirements. In most circumstances, recipients could no longer sit back and just collect welfare checks. But the big effect came from the changed incentives for the state bureaucrats running the programs. The strategy and policy behind these reforms was originally developed by long-time Reagan welfare guru Robert Carleson, and was favored by Reagan since his days as California Governor. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich led the adoption of these reforms as part of his Contract with America.
Scrapping What Works
This enormously successful, historic reform is now being
scrapped by changes adopted in the so-called stimulus package.
That package provides billions in additional funds for TANF/AFDC
based on the old matching federal funds approach. Indeed, the
stimulus bill provides that federal taxpayers will pay 80% of the
costs for each new welfare recipient signed up, with the states
paying only 20%. That is far worse even than the old, unreformed,
AFDC program, which generally divided costs between the states
and the feds by roughly 50/50. The federal government is now in
effect paying states to increase welfare dependency, and federal
costs.
As Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation writes, "[T]he original [welfare reform] goal of helping families move to employment and self-sufficiency and off long-term dependence on government assistance has instead been replaced with the perverse incentives of adding more families to the welfare rolls."
There is no reason for this change other than extremist, liberal left ideology. Barack Obama and the other extreme liberals now in complete control of the federal government believe in providing an open pipeline of taxpayer funds for welfare dependency, no questions asked. They believe it is unfair and oppressive to impose work requirements on the poor to receive welfare assistance.
But that left-wing philosophy is misguided and unfair to both taxpayers and the poor. It is wrong and unfair to taxpayers to ask them to finance a living for idle, indolent, welfare recipients who are perfectly capable of working and supporting themselves. At the same time, it is harmful and counterproductive for the government to induce welfare recipients to give up on work, and lapse into unnecessary, long-term dependency and idleness. Inducing the poor to subsist on welfare instead of working will leave them with lower incomes over the long run. It also undermines self-respect among the poor, and the spirit in poor communities, leading them into counterproductive activities resulting from idleness, such as drug use, alcoholism, illegitimate births, single motherhood, and personal deterioration.
The original 1996 welfare reform included a contingency fund to provide extra assistance to the states for TANF during an economic downturn. But those extra funds were provided based on the increase in the unemployment rate in each state. That kept the incentives of the historic welfare reforms in place. If more funds were needed by the states during the current economic crisis, Congress could simply have added more funds to that contingency fund. But instead Congress has provided billions to the states in new TANF funding tied to increases in state welfare spending, effectively paying the states to increase welfare spending to serve outdated left-wing ideology.
Runaway Welfare
Spending
But this is not all.
Rector reports that the so-called stimulus package includes
massive, unnecessary increases in welfare spending across the
board, for food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, and other
programs. Of the $816 billion in the stimulus bill, $264 billion,
or 32%, is provided for increased welfare spending. This amounts
to $6,700 in increased welfare for each poor person in the United
States, Rector reports.
The supposed stimulus bill increases federal welfare spending by 20% in the first year alone, Rector adds, increasing federal fleecing for welfare from $491 billion in fiscal year 2008 to $601 billion in fiscal 2009, the largest one-year increase in welfare spending in U.S. history. Obama and the left-wing Democrats claim that this increase in welfare spending is temporary. But Rector rightly argues that the Democrats will scream bloody murder if Republicans later try to cut back on these welfare increases. If these welfare increases are continued, then Rector calculates that the increased welfare costs will total $787 billion over 10 years. The stimulus bill would then cost taxpayers $1.34 trillion in increased spending over this period, or "$17,400 for each household paying income tax in the U.S.," Rector calculates.
Rector continues:,
Comments
Leave a Comment
Related Articles
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Michael Ledeen on Iran and Democracy
- Obama's Vision Through History
- Two Weddings and a Demerol
ADVERTISEMENT
Michael L. Hauschild| 2.18.09 @ 7:00AM
Want to lead America back to prosperity Peter? You have to start somewhere and here is something we need to address first.
One of the greatest abandonment of principles in the history of our Nation has just occurred in the Senate. Spector, Collins and Snowe, knowing full well their votes held the key to a filibuster, could have given the Senate body and their constituents the ability (and both the right and promise I might add) to examine the “Stimulus.”
The RNC and their new chair should advocate the denegation of these three to rank and file, remove them from all committee positions and body functions other than the simple “one vote only” their states electorate has bestowed. These three, with their contemptuous beltway definition of “bipartisanship” have bartered away trillions of dollars, a crushing tax burden that will break the backs of the taxpayers for the next generation. We have finally reached the welfare saturation point. No longer can the taxpayer, even given the economic viability of a capitalistic democracy, support the government dole. The beltway, with the advocacy and the “rush to judgment” of Snowe, Collins and Spector, is printing “Monopoly Money” to fund political favor and enhance incumbency. This blatant purchase of voters is the only transparent aspect of the bill.
The GOP should not wait till 2010 to dust off the “Remember the Maine” and the “Spector of Defeat” anthem. Had it not been for those three a filibuster could have been mustered and given everyone time to take a long look at the affront to democracy, disenfranchisement, and impending tax burden this “Contract with Socialism” imposes.
Rocco| 2.18.09 @ 7:00AM
As I said before the election, the Republicans (I am not one, by the way) were handed a "target rich environment" which they were too damned stupid to exploit. By the looks of it, they still haven't learned. Here is another instance of being handed an issue for which they could devise a fiscally responsible, common sense solution, and they appear to be clueless. Heaven help us!!
Rocco| 2.18.09 @ 7:01AM
Mr. Hauschild: I couldn't agree more.
Pingback| 2.18.09 @ 7:37AM
Topics about Health, Food and Well being » Archive » New Republican Opportunity: Welf links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.18.09 @ 7:41AM
News about Finance and related topics » New Republican Opportunity: Welfare Reform links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Jeremiah| 2.18.09 @ 8:00AM
Folks,
This is textbook econ 101. If you want to spend during a recession, give to the poor, not the rich.
The rich SAVE in bad times. The poor SPEND.
That's called "stimulus." It's what we're looking for.
All this talk about the evils of "welfare" has an uncanny Lee Atwater ring to it.
Remember: he repented.
Bill O'Stalin| 2.18.09 @ 8:25AM
Welfare reform is just another way that capitalists control the masses. It's far better to amass power by supplicating the masses to the deceptive hand of a government hand out, which is always there, as opposed to an employment opportunity, which may not always be there.
By deluding the public into believing they are getting something for nothing, when in actuality, they are being turned into societal zombies, you take power from the simpletons and amass the power unto yourself.
As an avowed Communist who holds no earthly possessions save my access to public libraries to post on the internet, I find the concern over the government amassing power to be quite amusing.
All governments desire power, but a wise electorate holds it back from them. When the public education system is controlled by a group of self serving political embodiments like public service unions, it's in their best interest to turn out misinformed morons who become the voters of tomorrow.
In the long run, the new splurge on welfare will create many new slums, as citizens who are given empowerment through entitlements suddenly no longer believe in self worth. They derive their self worth from government cheese and as long as the government hands out that government cheese, there is no other purpose to which they must ascribe.
In short, everyone becomes equally entitled to the free cheese motif until that paradigm no longer is feasible. Then the politically powerless, which is what the public becomes when they become supplicants, must take whatever is handed out. Soylent Green.
Todd| 2.18.09 @ 9:00AM
For all the talk of Obama being a centrist and doing "what works", this provision in the "stimulus" bill shows exactly his radical left-wing agenda that most of his here knew was coming. Welfare good and corporate profits bad like a true socialist. Bill has it exactly right, he calls himself a communist but it sounds like a personal decision for himself and not support for an authoritative government. I would assume the Stalin name is used as a joke.
How did I know Jeremiah would post on the virtues of increasing welfare and how good it is for the economy. Rather pathetic and nobody gives a damn about Lee Atwater. Lets see if Bob has anything to enlighten us on the subject. He made the claim last week that only Obama can reform the entitlement system and balance the budget, that is beyond idiotic. Like one of Reagan's famous quote, that idea is so stupid that only an intellectual could believe it.
Ryan| 2.18.09 @ 9:05AM
Jeremiah,
What's better - giving a poor man a job or a check? That's what this boils down to.
Here's the question, simplified: Is it better to use 10 million dollars off of a company's taxes so that they can hire a few hundred people to go to work for a lifetime, or to send thousands of people a check that they'll spend only once, and then need money AGAIN next month?
Is it better to put money in the hands of people who are successful in making that money grow, or in people who waste it away (I'm talking about the entire spectrum of rich to poor here, including the idiots at the top who brought a lot of this mess upon us - they don't need any more money to waste).
Jeremiah| 2.18.09 @ 9:40AM
Ryan --
Your questions would be much more pertinent IF the people who control the wealth in this country WERE in fact "good at" what they do.
However, as the last two years have shown, they are NOT.
Corporate culture has degenerated in the past three decades. Where once the wealthy at least had a sense of civic obligation, they are now motivated only by short term gains.
The system is completely rotten. If you don't see that, I might as well be talking to the wall.
The best thing the government now can do is engage in demand-side economics. The market can heal itself that way without completely decimating the middle class.
Ryan| 2.18.09 @ 10:14AM
You're actually arguing my point. We shouldn't be bailing out the companies who were screwing up, we should be lowering the taxes of the companies and people who are doing the right thing with their money. We should be giving companies who are doing the right thing the ability to hire people and place them in the middle class. We should NOT be giving handouts to bankrupt companies and bankrupt people.
I'm going to ask the question again: Is it better to use 10 million dollars off of a company's taxes so that they can hire a few hundred people to go to work for a lifetime, or to send thousands of people a check that they'll spend only once, and then need money AGAIN next month?
Dustoff| 2.18.09 @ 10:24AM
Jeremiah
IF the people who control the wealth in this country WERE in fact "good at" what they do.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So you mean to tell us the Gov is better? Did you forget the problems that both Barney Frank and Chris Dodd ingored when the home lending was going south from 2001 to now? plus driven by government ideas?
Have you looked at Japan and it's banking problems with the gov running it.
Dustoff| 2.18.09 @ 10:27AM
Jeremaih
Corporate culture has degenerated in the past three decade+++++++++++++++++++++
So we should follow the ethics of governement?
PLEASE, you cannot be that stupid!
JP| 2.18.09 @ 10:46AM
Jerimiah,
Giving "the little guy" some extra cash has never gotten any nation out of a recession. Especially now, when it is very likely the "little guy" will go to WalMart and spend his money. The Chicoms I'm sure will be happy.
Secondly, there was absolutely no debate on this part of the bill; it was slipped in the night before the House voted. What it does is remove the fixed lump sum amounts states recieve for Welfare, and resort to the pre-1996 no limit open ended sum (The Fed pays 80% of all welfare costs). If the Federal goverment wasn't allowed to run defecits, taxes would have to go up -that is Wellfare would just be plain income redistribution. Now, we will just borrow it and worry about funding Welfare later.
Ironically, the Dems controlled this issue in 1996. It was the Democratic Minority (46 seats) that a)ended the filibuster, and b)crossed over to the GOP side to offset a Clinton veto. Avoiding a public humiliation, Clinton signed the bill into law (and subsequently too full credit in reducing the Welfare rolls 80%).
Marc Jeric| 2.18.09 @ 10:52AM
We should stop reading Jeremiah's invectives - he is an old-time bolshevik. As to the banking CEO's, they did what prudent bosses had to do under threats of fines and prison if they did not give mortgages to "underserved minorities" - they bundled 90 good mortgages with 10 welfare mortgages and passed this new "derivative" security to Fannie and Freddie. These two financed re-elections of their close buddies Dodds and Frank (when I say "close" I am thinking of Frank's male lover there).
Abu Hussein from Kenya and his coterie of White House marxists and ACORN brownshirts are a national nightmare.
Dustoff| 2.18.09 @ 11:15AM
Marc J
Yeah it's odd isn't it. Since 2001 they have been talking about the Fanne & Freddie mess that would be coming. But man-o-man them dems made darn sure "nothing" was done to fix this . Instead the ones to brought this up were insulted. and called liars.
tonypal| 2.18.09 @ 12:11PM
Jeremiah:
Actually, the facts show that it's the poor who engage in non-stimulative activity, such as paying down personal debt. That's what happened last year when we tried a much smaller stimulus package.
Throwing chump change at people has failed miserably in the past. The only way an individual can truly be free and have a sense of self respect is to have a job. Last I checked, no one has ever gotten a job from a poor person.
Greedy capitalist like to make money by investing money, which leads to job creation. It doesn't take much to figure that out, yet this concept continues to elude you. Perhaps you have a future as an Obama economic advisor, but only if you've failed to pay your taxes.
Anthony| 2.18.09 @ 12:32PM
Don't you just love these leftist trolls who denounce what they do not comprehend? So, the "corporate culture" is the villlian eh? As if Jeremiah and his fellow do-nothings would actually know something about it. Our's is a $14 T economy, all created by the "corporate culture" of America, both large and small. Yes, I'm part of the corporate culture, as I sure are most of the posters at TAS, that's because we risk our capital every day and create jobs for others. It's easy to be a leftist government hack and take & re -distribute other people's money, that's what leftists live for, and their useful idiots will play along for the crumbs that get dropped.
Robert| 2.18.09 @ 12:58PM
Oh yes there IS another reason why this outrage was rammed through Congress. Nothing to do with expanding access to ill-begotten money for the indolent. It's about POWER and it has Rahmbo Emanuel's fingerprints all over it. For the same reason motor voter, immigration reform, amnesty for illegals and tax cuts to those who pay none. Dependency. More dependency equals more power and the almighty VOTE.
With this bill the left has cemented itself into power. Remember that, residents of Maine and Pennsylvania when you next consider pulling the lever for your lying, thieving Senators Spector, Collins and Snowe! Not only have they stolen your future. They have stolen the future of the entire country. Your kids will thank you, too, when their bill comes due!
stmichrick| 2.18.09 @ 1:54PM
Jeremiah, your twisting of common sense and common knowlege boggles the mind.
How many 'poor' folks have you worked for?
The rich INVEST.
WHEN will we have prominent, fearless conservative elected officials who can articulate and counter this re-invigoration of the PALMS-UP (formerly Great) SOCIETY?
stmichrick| 2.18.09 @ 1:54PM
Jeremiah, your twisting of common sense and common knowlege boggles the mind.
How many 'poor' folks have you worked for?
The rich INVEST.
WHEN will we have prominent, fearless conservative elected officials who can articulate and counter this re-invigoration of the PALMS-UP (formerly Great) SOCIETY?
Jeremiah| 2.18.09 @ 2:29PM
Too many good comments to respond individually to each.
Some general points:
Supply-side economics generally work OK when the markets are functioning properly. In times of recession and massive corruption and incompetence (like now), the principles just don't hold up to reality.
Capitalists are NOT investing. This is the whole problem. They probably will not invest until they're sure government largesse is at an end. One of the reasons for the staggering size of this package is to send the message that this is the last train leaving the station.
SOME business tax cuts are stimulative and that's why they're included in this package.
Unemployment insurance and food stamps are HIGHLY stimulative. This is not a theory; it's fact.
In general, one of the most stimulative actions a government can take is on medical care of elderly persons. The second most stimulative is on measures such as unemployment payments; the third is infrastructure construction and repair.
Jeremaih| 2.18.09 @ 2:33PM
It's all very well and good to sit around merrily discussing the evils of "socialism."
In reality, the only socialism that exists in the United States is for the benefit of the one percent of the population that controls fifty percent of the country's wealth.
If you're middle class, you are complete masochist if you enjoy this state of affairs.
Tax and spend liberalism seeks to redress this disparity and make the economy work for middle class people, rather than the other way around. Demand side economics is simple fairness.
JP| 2.18.09 @ 2:44PM
"Unemployment insurance and food stamps are HIGHLY stimulative. This is not a theory; it's fact. "
Yes, where I live, the Smokes For Less, the Buy Lotto Tickets Here, and Bob's Barn of Booze are all thriving.
Robert Rosencrans| 2.18.09 @ 2:58PM
Think it over. You build houses but there's a glut of housing available and Obama is in the process of nationalizing housing. Why bother to build houses and take that risk anymore? Result: Massive unemployment in the housing sector guaranteed. Housing prices will fall which will dry up taxes leading to layoffs of public service employees.
You build cars but there is a glut of cars and sales have dropped from a capacity high of 17 million to an iffy 10 million a year. That means you're just about cut in half, yet you go to a willing government who wants to "keep you around." Result: Millions stay employed in an industry where products are no longer being moved. Corporate/public welfare.
You make loans but the government is now taking over the risk part of the loan process so why would you make loans anymore? If the borrower screws up, you are headed to a process where your equity of the principle will be wiped out and there is a 60% chance the borrower will default again. Result: Interest rates will either skyrocket or the dollar will devalue wiping out the wealth of millions of taxpayers who will then turn to the government for their bailouts.
You attack the best health care system in the world from two fronts. All records are placed into a digital data bank the government will control. Standards will be set up to determine who will get what health care. That is, if there is any health care. Why go to 12 years of school to become a government employee and have your income dictated by "cost" concerns? Result: Health care will become another crippled industry in the sense it will have to be rationed. A government employee will determine if you are "worthy."
In a few short weeks Obama has taken steps to wreck the economy and whose effects will be observable soon enough. The Obama supporters are cherring, but soon their employer will be closing down, not able to stand up to the onslaught of government takeovers of industry after industry. It's better to shift the risk to the government and just shut it down.
stmichrick| 2.18.09 @ 4:45PM
Jeremiah; guaranteed 'simple fairness' has an inverse relationship with growth and creation of wealth for ANYBODY.
I'm not wealthy but have no desire to eliminate the possibility of it for me or anyone else. That is what Obama's 'change' is about.
So Jerry, events are starting to overtake you and the leftists that welcome this regime. I did not think so at first but now I have the Audacity of Hope that this guy's gonna be a one termer.
JeffW| 2.18.09 @ 5:00PM
Jeremiah,
You stated "One of the reasons for the staggering size of this package is to send the message that this is the last train leaving the station. "
Apparently you haven't hear the talk of Stimulus Package # 2. This was not the last train unfortunately.
Interloper| 2.18.09 @ 5:35PM
Apparently, there is some alternative universe in which unemployment is not near eight percent, more massive layoffs have not been announced, more companies have not filed for bankruptcy and the housing market is not simultaneously decimated and frozen. It is where most of the participants in this thread are posting from. Either that, or they are just mindlessly reciting the nonsense they hear on talk radio and FOX.
With unemployment and food scarcity at their highest in decades, the most timely aspects of the stimulus package are funding of extended unemployment benefits and food stamps. Next is the expansion of children's health care so that we don't have to cover problems that could have been prevented down the road, such as failures to immunize.
It cannot be said too often: Funds for the low and middle-income will be SPENT. The effect will be to stimulate the economy, and, create and maintain jobs providing the services and goods their money will be spent on. These classes will spend the money because they don't have any other way to meet their basic needs.
An irony of this sort of site as that many of its denizens, despite their identification with the far Right, are poor or lower middle-class. They will benefit from the very stimulus package programs they are criticizing. I recall that the Right Winger who shot up a church a few months ago, gunning for liberals, was about to lose his food stamps benefits. Folks like him just don't get it.
Truth to Power| 2.18.09 @ 7:15PM
The Interloper should get his good-deed doing money from Democrat bag men Madoff and Stanford. Whoops it is all gone. I have heard Democrat lame promises over the years and don't believe any of them are the slightest bit concerned about the poor. I am sure a few crums will be thrown their way as the rest of the "plan" adds to their numbers. The Interloper offers the hope of the Soviet Union.
Ben| 2.18.09 @ 8:34PM
socialism is shared misery. The only reason the poor vote democrap is because misery loves company. If we're all poor we won't feel like we're better or worse than anyone else. We will be easier to control once the government becomes our provider. They will reward capitulation and punish dissidence with our basic necessities.
Jeremiah| 2.18.09 @ 8:38PM
Jeff W
I haven't heard any mention of another stimulus package -- except for baseless speculations on Rush Limbaugh's show.
But Limbaugh is not a journalist or a politician. When I see it proposed by someone who actually has the power to propose it, I'll respond then.
Until then, I'll respond to the facts as we have them.
stmichrick| 2.18.09 @ 9:41PM
Jeremiah; "Baseless speculation on Rush Limbaugh's show?"
You tipped your hand...try listening some time.
I can understand disagreement...the patent dismissal gives you away.
DaveinPhoenix| 2.18.09 @ 10:03PM
This is how a Democratic congress traps otherwise decent Americans into poverty while also creating a permanent electorate... Poverty stricken slaves to their government. Well done, hope they're proud of themselves.
Alan Brooks| 2.18.09 @ 10:31PM
intergropen,
i'm poor and free would rather stay that way than be rich and enslaved. only the truly gifted ought to be rich-- if you and i, intergropenfuhrer, had what it takes we'd be writing at AS, not commenting. and that Bill O' Stalin library troll should stay that way forever. please do!
Alan Brooks| 2.18.09 @ 10:40PM
geesh it is starting already-- the Commies are coming out oif the woodwork!
Alan Brooks| 2.18.09 @ 10:41PM
Bill O Stalin! what a moniker!
but the commies are right about just one thing-- Hell IS a place on earth.
ruth| 2.18.09 @ 11:17PM
Like all good commies, Groper and Jeremiah don't love money as much as they love power. Obomber is all about the consolidation of power.
Pingback| 2.19.09 @ 1:10AM
The Stimulus Package is not designed to save the economy, it’s designed to save liber links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Kathy| 2.19.09 @ 8:00AM
As far as I'm concerned, as long as the bulk of the media is skewed to the left, it doesn't matter what Republicans think or want-it simply won't get out to the public.
Ryan| 2.19.09 @ 8:57AM
My question STILL remains unanswered.
Is it better to use 10 million dollars off of a company's taxes so that they can hire a few hundred people to go to work for a lifetime, or to send thousands of people a check that they'll spend only once, and then need money AGAIN next month?
Food stamps are stimulative, that's a given. I'm not arguing the point. However, is it more stimulative to give a person food stamps or to lower taxes on a company to give that person a job? I don't hear that question being asked from the left - all I hear are short-term solutions, not long-term ones.
Also, did the welfare system fail as it had been working since the '96 revamp? What was wrong with it that it had to be changed in such a manner?
What's the problem with the wealthy having the most money, if I live comfortably off of a middle-class income? Why should I care?
Interloper| 2.19.09 @ 3:38PM
It is ironic that the Right Wing Republicans whine that the stimulus package will have a permanent effect on entitlements out of one side of their mouths, and, that the effect is temporary out of the other. Peter Ferrara is throwing a massive hissy fit over a non-existent plan to permanently increase entitlements while reactionary governors are complaining the stimulus package increases are temporary. Guess they missed each others memos.
Kathy, 'the Republicans' is a misnomer. Most Republican governors are backing the Obama administration on the stimulus package, some very openly. They know those funds are needed with record unemployment and large state deficits. The perspective one gets at a site like this is very out of touch with reality. You need to go and read the mainstream political news.
Ryan, I suspect thoughtful people ignore you because you don't really ask questions. You reel off Limbaugh talk show rhetoric and whatever the latest droppings of moonbats like Ferrara happen to be. (For example, his claims that the stimulus package is an effort to increase 'welfare' and that the GOP could profit presently by demanding welfare reform are baseless and just plain loony.) Your inability to think analytically or separate opinion from fact makes it rather pointless to engage you.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.19.09 @ 4:08PM
Thanks for all the offers I received to give me some money, but true Communists never take money or desire possessions. If you look at the Stimulus the tax cuts are deceptive, accounting for only 22% in actual tax cuts. That means about $640 billion or so is a direct heist from the private sector. Wouldn't that $640 billion have provided just as many jobs in the private sector? Therefore what's the point of this bill other then to provide the anointed one an excuse to mount his taxpayer financed jet (By the way when he flys there's always a backup plane in the air also-Talk about a carbon waste) and consolidate his political power in the Midwest where he's weak. It just gets back to the old adage, he's buying your vote with your money.
Ryan| 2.20.09 @ 11:30AM
Interloper - yeah, they're a bit argumentative. However, I don't see how they are still yet illegitimate questions.
We believe that jobs - true productive work that produces long-term income - is the answer and that money is better used in the hands of the industries and companies that people need to work for. I don't see how a short-term investment creates those jobs. Yeah, it may pay for whatever is on the store shelf right now and feed a man for a little while, and the money goes into someone else's pocket (probably more likely offshore as cheap, mass-produced items that lower income people buy) and supposedly around and around...but how long can that last if a man can't do it over and over and over again because he doesn't have work?
Do you even understand the argument from our side? Do you even see our point? Have you even considered the questions I asked, rather than dismissing them out-of-hand as me trying to argue my point?
If I'm wrong, then it's because THOSE points that I was asking about are wrong, and if you want to have the government provide for people in America instead of real jobs, they're questions that have to be answered, and the left and demand-side economics does NOT answer them.
A concerned citizen| 4.6.09 @ 3:58PM
It sounds like Mr. Ferrera's plan includes an increase in the size of government to administer such a proposed system. How many welfare offices would you need to make this system sustainable? How many human resource professionals would it take to place the recipients into their daily positions? How much is that free government provided daycare, health insurance, and housing assistance going to cost? When the recipients are placed in positions with private firms, who is paying the wages? If Uncle Sam is, the it's more than likely going to pay out more than the existing system does and its going to subsidize a labor force for private companies. If private industry is providing the wages, then they are effectively getting a 10% break on the minimum wage required by law.
Your system makes little sense as it increases the size of government and public expenditures while ti effectively gives private industry free manpower. You need to face the facts: the current welfare system is the best way you rich nazi fascists can keep a large swath of the public docile at the lowest possible cost. There a big brain in D.C. who has come to this conclusion after crunching the numbers. If it weren't so, Uncle Sam wouldn't be doing it.
dropshippngwatch| 8.31.09 @ 2:20AM
Replica Watch
Replica Watches
Fake Watch
Sales Replica Watches
Replica Watches Trade
Replica Watches
Replica IWC Watches
Replica Jacob & Co Watches
Replica Jaeger-LECoultre Watches
Replica Jaquet Droz Watches
Replica Longines Watches
Replica Louis Vuitton Watches
Replica Maurice Lacroix Watches
Replica MontBlanc Watches
Replica Movado Watches
Replica Omega Watches
Replica Oris Watches
Replica Panerai Watches
Replica Parmigiani Watches
Replica Patek Philippe Watches
Replica Paul Picot Watches
http://www.dropshippingwatch.com
Wedding Dresses| 9.10.09 @ 2:12AM
Very good article written,Wedding Dresses
Designer Wedding Gowns
let me understand a lot