Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

American Welfare Reform

  • 10-06-2010 05:24PM
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 725 ✭✭✭


    I'm aware that the Clinton administration in cooperation with a Republican controlled congress reformed America's welfare state in 1996. I just have a couple of questions as to what sort of reforms took place.

    1) Where single parents legally obliged to go out and seek employment?
    2) How many job applications does an unemployed person have to submit each week?
    3) How long is welfare eligibility for in the US as a result of these reforms?
    4) Did the legislation do more to promote marriage and discourage out of wedlock births?
    5) Were teenage mothers obliged to live at home with their parents?
    6) What percentage of single parents worked in 2006 before the recession as compared to 1996 when the legislation was drafted?

    From what I've heard welfare reform in the US has proven to be sucessful when compared to European countries who have tried to end long term welfare dependency.


Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 53 ✭✭scallioneater


    I'm aware that the Clinton administration in cooperation with a Republican controlled congress reformed America's welfare state in 1996. I just have a couple of questions as to what sort of reforms took place.

    1) Where single parents legally obliged to go out and seek employment?
    2) How many job applications does an unemployed person have to submit each week?
    3) How long is welfare eligibility for in the US as a result of these reforms?
    4) Did the legislation do more to promote marriage and discourage out of wedlock births?
    5) Were teenage mothers obliged to live at home with their parents?
    6) What percentage of single parents worked in 2006 before the recession as compared to 1996 when the legislation was drafted?

    From what I've heard welfare reform in the US has proven to be sucessful when compared to European countries who have tried to end long term welfare dependency.



    The system changes have changed the behaviour of low income people. The switch to TANF has resulted in higher rates of childbearing by low income people. TANF has a five year cut off, so when the child reaches five, the parent(s) have to have another child to keep their subsidy. All these welfare restriction systems are absurb because when you are desperate, you will do whatever it takes to fit into the system rules. People in the US have children to unlock subsidies because those are the rules.

    These children are not viewed by their parents with love, but as a neccessity, as a form of paperwork. Ever wonder why the school system is falling apart at the lower levels and imprisonment is booming in the US? Meanwhile any money saved by the government is instead being spent on ensuring that banks don't lose money.

    I don't begrudge anyone the basics of living their lives and raising their children, I do have a big problem with subsidizing the rich to tell us how much better they are.

    Ireland should continue to look after the people that live in Ireland. That is what will make Ireland a prosperous and safe community. If you want to cut welfare, cut the rich. For instance, eliminate mortgage interest relief, its just a middle class and bank subsidy. Low income workers can't take advantage and the banks get most of the subsidy anyway.

    The US cutting of welfare has been a false economy that is slowly undermining consent of the poor to be governed. Look up the increasing numbers of police officers and the national security state that is emerging from the collapse of the social contract in the US.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,511 ✭✭✭dave2pvd


    If you want to cut welfare, cut the rich. For instance, eliminate mortgage interest relief, its just a middle class and bank subsidy. Low income workers can't take advantage and the banks get most of the subsidy anyway.

    Is it only the rich and middle class that have mortgages? Can lower income workers not aspire to home ownership?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 53 ✭✭scallioneater


    dave2pvd wrote: »
    Is it only the rich and middle class that have mortgages? Can lower income workers not aspire to home ownership?


    You have to be paying tax to get tax relief on a mortgage. The more tax you pay the bigger mortgage you can carry. Low wage workers would pay little or no income tax and will consequently get little or no tax relief, making it harder for them to buy a house.

    Added to this is the inflation of prices caused by mortgage tax relief. If no-one gets tax relief, then everyone will pay less for property. The government spins mortgage relief as helping people, but all it really does is subsidize the banks and pump up the government's GDP figures.

    Because tax relief helps the wealthier more, as well as inflating the price of all property, poorer people are LESS able to afford to buy a home.

    Poor people can and do buy homes, but they pay more than they ought to and get less relief from interest because of the system of mortgage tax relief.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,768 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    Meanwhile any money saved by the government is instead being spent on ensuring that banks don't lose money.
    This is called wealthfare: using billions of taxpayers money to bailout wealthy investment bankers like those working for Goldman Sachs in 2008, or the executives and major stock holders of AIG, who threw a $400,000 party at the Santa Barbara Marriott, including over $20,000 in massages celebrating the receipt of taxpayer bailout monies.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 53 ✭✭scallioneater


    This is called wealthfare: using billions of taxpayers money to bailout wealthy investment bankers like those working for Goldman Sachs in 2008


    It's even deeper than that. They whole structure of the mortgage industry operates to finance these banks before any bailouts. Governments have been channelling money to the banks for decades under the guise of giving ordinary people (middle class voters) a tax break.

    A real regulatory reform of banks won't happen until the average mortgage holder accepts a large part of the blame for the financial mess. Behind every greedy banker, there are thousands of greedy bank customers.

    Instead of cutting welfare payments, we should be clipping these bank subsidies. I prefer happy families to happy banks.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement