Mountains of evidence pointing to serious, deliberate crimes

[bread_and_roses]

252. How I love the "welfare bashing" I see around here these days

"No, welfare should be a temporary situation to get people back on their feet, not a years-long landing spot."

First, few people on "welfare" ever regarding it as some sort of soft "landing spot" as you imply - and a great many, if not most, went on and off as they found work. Unfortunately, most jobs that most people on "welfare' were and are able to get are both low-paid and totally unforgiving of anything like a sick child. Schedules are often also near-impossible for anyone who either has a child or who does not have a car. Among the many reasons that low-wage workers are in and out of work. There was plenty of data at the time to show this pattern, but Clinton chose to pretend it was all about "personal responsibility."

Furthermore, "welfare" did not then and does not now give anyone enough to live on. I live in NY, one of the more "generous" states regarding welfare. Nonetheless, it was not unusual then and is not now for the entire "welfare check" to go for rent, leaving nothing for anything else - not clothes, not toilet paper, not dish soap. Toilet paper and dish soap - also body soap and toothpaste - were among the most frequent items clients would ask me if I could find them some help to get. I don't know about you, but I don't call that a "landing spot."

Clinton's "welfare reform" also made it HARDER for people "to get back on their feet" by reducing their education options, for one.

http://www.thirteen.org/metrofocus/2011/07/5-ways-new-yorkers-say-welfare-policies-fail-them/

#5 Full-time student? You still need to work 30 hours a week: Before the 1996 Welfare Reform law, 30,000 students who received benefits attended CUNY. Today, CUNY only has only 6,000 students who receive benefits The 1996 law limited recipients of cash assistance to one year of post-secondary education and began cutting off benefits for students unless they spent 30 hours a week working.

Additionally, the draconian regulations and penalties often mean that people are thrown even deeper into poverty if anything goes wrong and they break one of the "rules" - like losing a job because your day-care provider got sick, or terminated you because your schedule made you pick up the child late on too many times.

Since there is not and never has been adequate subsidized child-care for people on "welfare" these were the kinds of nightmare scenarios I saw when I worked in the field. And many more. I could go on and on.

There is no question that "welfare reform" caused untold pain, stress, hardship, and yes, actual hunger and cold and homelessness.

http://www.cbpp.org/research/family-income-support/tanf-cash-benefits-continued-to-lose-value-in-2013

As of July 1, 2013, every state’s benefits for a family of three with no other cash income were below 50 percent of the federal poverty line, measured by the Department of Health and Human Services 2013 poverty guidelines. Benefits were below 30 percent of the poverty line in most states. And, the TANF benefit level for a family of three with no other cash income is less than the Fair Market Rent for a two-bedroom apartment in every state, nationwide.[1] In fact, in 25 states, TANF benefits cover less than half of the Fair Market Rent. When SNAP benefits (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps) are added to TANF family grants, families with no other income are still below the poverty line.

TANF provides a safety net to relatively few poor families: in 2012, just 25 families received TANF benefits for every 100 poor families, down from 68 families receiving TANF for every 100 in poverty in 1996.

I worked for years and years with people on welfare - both in the state system itself & for private NFPs. I could go on and on. But I won't. It's obvious around here that it is now OK to spout right-wing talking points and myths about people "on welfare."