in this economy, is a five year limit on welfare benefits reasonable?

[ulysses]

I haven't seen any major uptick in hiring lately, as we drag into another year in this recession. Wonder what's happened to all those folks whose bennies have run out...

[bullimiami]

1. I think fixed limits on welfare benefits are inhuman.

One of the things Clinton contributed in which I loathe.

[Sugarbleus]

32. I agree. Was wrong to limit it in the first place.

"Social Programs/entitlement programs" were suppose to serve as a
safety net for persons having a hard go of it, until they can get on their feet. For hard times like in ..........THESE HARD TIMES.

In our small community, we had an almost perfect welfare system that bent over back wards to help people get back to work/school. So many benefits were added to help the person get going: clothing allowances,Career-works programs, transportation allowances, childcare, extended healthcare, and NO limits on how many TIMES one could use the system.

They gave the recipients about 5 years before they urged them to start looking for work or go to college. The program extended AFDC benefits during the whole process, even into a new job. It was the best reform since it's inception, a great success. THEN CLINTON KILLED the whole damn thing!! Kerry signed that bill too.

Social Security was formed to keep the aged and disabled from suffering abject poverty. It was formed right after the depression era...to keep people from having to endure those types of hardships ever again. Now the repugs(and a few dems) want to KILL IT TOO.

These are some of the things that have killed it for me with this "New" Democratic Party.

[unblock]

2. right, when a single waitress' kids are 5 or 6, they're old enough to work

seriously, "welfare" is a broad term. which program are you referring to?

[ulysses]

4. I'm referring to any and all programs

that support the ability of the poorest among us to put a roof over their heads and food on their tables.

[Poor Richard Lex]

3. first you have to ask if welfare benefits are sufficient in the first plac

they arent all the time. Welfare supports children. That is what it is about.

[UVASAM1]

5. recession?

the economy's in recession?

Granted, there arent that many great jobs out there, but there are jobs to be had. I just had this discussion with my brother, who is 28 and has been unemployed for over 2 years now, mainly b/c he refuses to do "manual labor" (he wont work at a Target distribution center, where he was offered a job, and where he would make a fine paycheck)

[unblock]

6. a fine paycheck at target? bwa ha ha ha ha!

they may be a step up from walmart, but the pay still suck and so do the benefits, or lack thereof.

[UVASAM1]

9. not bad at all

a distribution center, not a target store

these positions, for which they hire people with just a basic high school diploma, pay pretty well, like $15-17 an hour to start. Not bad for no skills or college.

[MissB]

23. Maybe instead of the $15-$17 and hour, we could just

hand them some bootstraps.

[ulysses]

7. there were jobs to be had in 1930, too.

Yes, we're still in a recession.

[UVASAM1]

8. umm

not by any economists standards.

[Ms_Mary]

10. Economists who think outsourcing is helping the economy?

[UVASAM1]

11. well

there's somewhat of a debate about outsourcing among economists. no economist would tell you the country's still in a recession. i'm not saying its rosy but theres no way its a recession

[Ms_Mary]

41. Maybe not as a whole, but in some areas it feels like it.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[UVASAM1]

13. hmmm

there you go

[ulysses]

14. what *do* those soothsayers say we're in?

A boom? Am I rich yet?

[UVASAM1]

16. we are

in a period of solid growth.

we should all be pleased if the economy would forever grow at a 3-4% clip.

[MissB]

17. ROFL!

Man, that was funny.

[Sparkly]

18. "solid growth?"

The national debt is in a "period of solid growth," too.

The ranks of the unemployed and uninsured haven't exactly taken a dive, either.

And the dollar is sinking like a stone.

[ulysses]

19. solid growth in *what*?

Jobs? Corporate profits? What? I don't trust econospeak. Tell me what it is that's growing solidly.

[UVASAM1]

20. growth

There has been job growth, though its not as high as most would like (again, not saying these are great jobs)

The Unemployment rate is still historically fine. Corporate profits tanked in 2001, but have come back over the past quarters, from 17-33%. Inflation is still relatively under control.

I'm not saying the economy's as great as you'd like it to be, but as a student of economics, any economist would never use the term "recession" to define the current period.

[MissB]

21. So you're saying that job growth is solid?

Seriously- that is what you're saying?

[UVASAM1]

24. umm

I dont think I said that at all, anywhere in my post.

[MissB]

25. You were asked exactly what was solidly growing

and that is what you started your post with.

Again - what exactly is solidly growing in this economy?

[UVASAM1]

26. umm

the overall growth rate is solid

inflation, as of now is still under control

productivity is solid

the unemployment rate is solid (viewed in a historical context)

job growth has been there, but its not up to expectations (which I think I pointed out). its there, but we need more, and I think everyone acknowledges that.

[MissB]

27. I think you may have to clarify yet again

Frankly, I haven't seen any indications of solid growth in our economy.

The overall growth rate of the economy is solid? Is that what you are saying? Seriously, you aren't making much sense.

The overall growth rate of WHAT is solid?

[UVASAM1]

29. the main measure used by every economist

gross domestic product

[MissB]

30. How many posts did it take for you to find that?

Seriously.

Hard to take your post seriously. If wages and salaries and job indicators are still down, the steady growth of the GDP doesn't mean diddly.

[UVASAM1]

31. its hard to take you seriously

most economists would disagree.

in any case, the OP was talking about a recession. Find me an economist who calls the period we're in now a recession.

[MissB]

33. 'skay

It only took you two direct questions and a few more posts to get you to spit out GDP.

Welcome to DU! Enjoy your stay.

[Telly Savalas]

43. When people say the economy is growing....

99.99% of the time they're referring to the GDP. The reason it took him so long to explicitly mention the GDP is likely because he assumed that everyone knew what he was talking about.

[cally]

39. Five years was never enough

We all knew that at the time. Good paying jobs are hard to find and even harder to find when you have a deadline.

I agree, UVASAM1, the economic indicators are not terrible. We are not in a recession. On a national level, it's OK. We have to look at the underlying statistics. How long does it take to get a job? Has quality of life improved? etc.

[ulysses]

22. ok, whatever.

Maybe we can train all those folks who remain unemployed in this "historically fine" situation to be economists. Might raise the professional bar a bit.

[MissB]

28. Where is Liberty U located, anyway?

Are they pumping out economists yet?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. One Can Believe Two Mutually Exclusive Concepts And Believe Both To Be

True....


Techincally we are not in a recession as a recession is defined by two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth... That being said the economy needs to grow 3-4% a year just to add more jobs...

There are lots of troubling signs in the economy


-the sinking dollar

-the massive personal and national debt

-outsourcing

[shraby]

35. Have you been to the grocery store or the

gas station yet? Have you shopped for ANYTHING?

[AirAmFan]

15. That depends on how long you want poor families to be able to survive

If you want poor families to be able to survive longer than 5 years, NO IT'S NOT.

There are all kinds of reasons people go on welfare. Many drug or alcohol addicts have trouble avoiding relapses. Should their families be broken up, and kids be subject to the depravity of foster care if the addicts have no living siblings or parents?

Many people have been deprived of adequate education, or have developmental disabilities that limit their earning power. They work full time, but don't earn enough to support their families. Should their children be allowed to live with loving natural parents? Or do you agree with what Newt Gingrich once said" "They can go to an ORPHANAGE!"

Many people live where there are few jobs (for example, on reservations for Native Americans or in isolated rural places). Should they be forced to relocate to rough neighborhoods in cities where in all likelihood the children will become criminal victims, then possibly victimizers?

THINK about what you're casually asking, and what it means for real children who've done NOTHING to deserve destitution and abuse. What you're really asking is, Do poor children deserve to have parents?

[fnottr]

34. I think I'm going to go out on a limb here

and say that I do agree with some reasonable limits to welfare programs. Now I don't necessarily agree with the arbitrary 5 year limit on all social programs you postulate, but I do believe that the welfare systems should be designed in such a way as to encourage people who able to work to get back to actually get jobs. I do not approve of people living off of government handouts when they are perfectly able to hold jobs. I know this is not the case for many people who rely on welfare, but it does happen fairly frequently. I like the idea behind the 'welfare to work' program, if not the actual program itself.

[shraby]

36. Have you ever been on welfare?

What is given to recipients is not enough to cover their basic needs..food, shelter and heat. They literally have to live in ratholes in order to have enough to cover their shelter. Eat a lot of macaroni, pasta, etc. which is really good for them, buy their clothes at a thrift shop if there is enough money. Keep the heat turned way down so they can stay warm. Forget entertainment beyond the television or gas for the car.
I'm talking about ordinary, run of the mill, down on their luck people who have lost their jobs and their unemployment has run out. Believe me, there are plenty of them.

Home forclosures is at an all time high. Food banks are really busy and for the first time the local grocery store gave out a notice in our grocery bags to have us buy school supplies for children who can't afford paper, pencils and crayons.

Get your head out of your ass. Wake up and smell the coffee. Economists don't know diddley squat what is going on out here among real people.

Even during the great depression there were people who didn't believe there was a depression going on. We'd be in the middle of one right now if it weren't for the social programs that are in place.

[fnottr]

37. No, I've never been on welfare

and I hope to god I never have to. If people are down on their luck, I believe there should always be some sort of safety net put in place by the government to keep a roof over their head, food on the table, etc.

What I also believe, however, is that the welfare system should be geared toward getting it's recipients back into the workforce. I know this is not always a viable option, particularly in poor economic conditions. This is why I don't like the idea of arbitrary time caps as originally proposed in this thread.

[ThorsHammer]

38. Well said (nt)

[gottaB]

42. It has never been reasonable

Interesting bit of history: http://iupjournals.org/jwh/jwh11-4.html