What is Digg?117 Comments
- Smoove, on 10/12/2007, -7/+32Excellent progress. Let's reform it some more.
- anasazi, on 10/12/2007, -7/+26It was a good start, but now more change is needed.
- c0dem0nkey, on 10/12/2007, -11/+26Curious. Why did you (Sidewinder77) leave out the fact that it was the Democrats/liberals that were opposed to the welfare reform that has apparently worked out so well. I realize you paraphrased...to a point...but it almost looks like you were trying to hide the fact. For the record: I'm a political independent.
FTA: "A decade later, the worst fears of liberals haven't materialized. States did not enter what critics feared would be a money-saving "race to the bottom." Thousands of poor children did not wind up "sleeping on grates," as Democratic senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan predicted." - ViperDaimao, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15I dont think it should be the govt's job to take away gas station owner's freedom like that.
- ViperDaimao, on 10/12/2007, -8/+23Because saying something bad about liberals in the summary (however true) would offend over half of digg and it probably wouldnt get to the front page; the same way saying something bad about conservatives in the summary (however true) would have offened part of digg and probably get it buried.
- honkyman5000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14And motels should cut their brooms in half so we can hire twice as many maids. Did Digg trip and fall into the Twilight Zone?
- nargilamonster, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19The article goes on to describe the creation of another category: the working poor, a group whose numbers are quickly rising. I agree though, social welfare is expensive. But, if you talk to any economist, including ever single professor I've had icollege, the deadweight loss from corporate welfare is not only much more expensive (in dollars) but also impedes the functions of a free market system much more than social welfare.
- Smoove, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13I grew up literally below the poverty line. For us it meant that we had basic cable but no pay channels, we sometimes ate beans and hotdogs for dinner, and when we ate out it was usually McDonalds. We had four cars, all used, two of which worked at any given time. We did own our own house, so our lawn provided ample parking for our cars.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14"When Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, conservatives celebrated and liberals screamed; three administration officials quit their jobs in protest. The act ended a 60-year-old federal guarantee of cash aid for the poor."
Sorry evilTak, but your party opposed it. Quit taking credit. Clinton was somewhat moderate, much better than his wife. - ViperDaimao, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Found these stats from a Washinton Times editorial used in wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#Relative_measures_of_poverty
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20031005-111129-3478r.htm
"For example, 91 percent of those in the lowest 10 percent of households — all officially poor — own color TVs, 74 percent own microwave ovens, 55 percent own VCRs, 47 percent own clothes dryers, 42 percent own stereos, 23 percent own dishwashers, 21 percent own computers and 19 percent own garbage disposals. " - bluesydude, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13That is kind of the whole point. If a single person is unable to make it on 7-10 bucks per hour then why in the world would they decide, "Let's get pregnant!" If one is smart enough to know they can't live on what they earn single then one should be smart enough to know it will not be enough to support a family.
- SmeRndmGy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Can you even buy a non-color TV in the year 2006? That is like asking if a car has seatbelts.
- Smoove, on 10/12/2007, -10/+18All forms of welfare should be gotten rid of: robbing one person and giving the loot to another is a crime, regardless of the specific choice of victim.
- Dred, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I was poor and had a family to support, I did what was necessary. I worked long and hard till eventually I gained more pay and benefits. I did take some help from the government it wasn't much but it helped. Now after many years of hard work I am considered middle class, my two sons learned from all of my hard work by getting good educations. They hopefully will not have to work as hard. The point being is that people sometimes need a little help, but I don't believe they should be allowed to not work or try to work. Nobody owes you anything you have to earn it.
- Vive42, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9USA today presented that story in an interesting way. and by interesting, I mean biased towards the new system. Personally, I think it is better for people to be dirt poor and have a job than dirt poor without one. but "working poor" is still poor. and as was mentioned in the article the increase in income is offset by a decrease in benefits like food stamps, child care, and health care as a person's income increases.
if any of you are trying to support a family on $7-$10 bucks an hour i'd be surprised. I make that and I can barely afford rent and food for one person, I can't imaginehaving to take care of kids too. Anyone young, imagine your summer job paycheck had to support two kids and rent an apartment. its hardly a triumph of compassionate conservatism. - Sidewinder77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8You're absolutely right c0dem0nkey. I was almost trying to hide the fact.
I wasn't trying to trick anyone, but I didn't want it sound like the fact welfare reform worked was pro-conservative or anti-liberal or whatever. The data is the data. Lots of people are better off now and that's a really good thing. - jasonshaffer, on 10/12/2007, -9/+17@hodyoaten: Corporate America already uses all of its might to reduce poverty and eliminate homelessness. Its called a J. O. B. and guess who provides them?
- LiterateWolf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Welfare reform should include the unemployment office. Once on welfare, the unemployment office sends a list of jobs to the person so they can have a job that allows them to be independent of welfare.
Also, we should remove corporations from welfare aka subsidies. It makes them lazy. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11The largest percentage of the population that receives Welfare are middle class Americans who are between jobs.
- jclawson, on 10/12/2007, -9/+14Ummm yeah... The President does not make laws... Why don't you take a look at who controlled congress at the time... maybe even who wrote the bill... Yeah thats right... Republicans
I like how everything that goes well is somehow or another always tied to democrats and things that go wrong are always republicans' fault... biased media?
Lets review the philosophies:
Republicans: Don't depend on government to do everything for you (small government, low taxes, self reliance--- democracy)
Deomcrats: Don't worry, the governement can handle everything for you (Healthcare, schools, retirement, welfare, rich people=bad, robin hood, big government, high taxes---- communism)
Democrats like to spout the ideals of creating a utopia where everyone is rich... or actually... make the poor man rich and the rich man poor... and spouting this off while saying its the rich guy's fault that you are poor. It's funny because all these democrats are rich themselves! How can you say you understand the plight of the "working middle class blue collar worker" when you have 4 mansions and 6 cars like John Kerry does. WTF??? There will NEVER be a utopia... there will ALWAYS be poor people. And freaking like 5% unemployment is considered FULL EMPLOYMENT.... anything lower means there is a PROBLEM in the economy.
Clinton did do one thing right... he didn't veto the bills the Republicans sent through... - Luyseyal, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6It's always nice to see the libertarian side presented, as usual, without any regard to human nature or social conditions. You and I are educated smarties.
We don't need payday loans because we don't have a wife and kids and rent and a paycheck that doesn't cover all three at once. Don't even mention health care, cause they don't have it. You and I pay for that every time they go to the ER for a fricking cold.
We know not to eat McDonald's every day or we'll get health problems but some folks don't really get it. McDonald's is extremely cheap, convenient, and filling. Is there any wonder the poor are overweight? Believe it or not, a good number of the poor really don't understand healthy eating (or the healthy feeding of their children) even though it's extremely basic knowledge. They really don't understand that buying groceries and cooking -- if you have the time -- can actually save you money if you know how to do it.
I find the tallying of the few "luxuries" that the poor enjoy extremely cynical. So what if you got two hand-me-down or extremely cheap cars or an unwanted color TV? So the poor attempt to gain some enjoyment out of life. How criminal! How terrible! If you're not groveling on the street with a mental disorder (like nearly every homeless guy I've met in wonderful Austin, Texas), you're obviously living it up like the rest of America!
Welfare reform was good. Clinton and the GOP were right to work together on that. Further reforms to hold states accountable are also good. But assuming that your upbringing and education is anything like anyone else's is bad judgment. The poor need education, job skills, people skills (c.f., keeping a job), and health care (especially mental health care).
Lastly, the foster care system feeds right into poverty. More families need to adopt kids out of the cycle of poverty and ignorance. You don't want to have kids? Great, why not consider raising an unwanted child?
Grumpy this morning,
-l - ViperDaimao, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11We people say poor what do they mean? From what I understand many poor families have 2 cars, a house, a microwave, color tv (possibly cable)...
- Mace37, on 10/12/2007, -16/+21Ya, KevinJ's right. 100% of people on welfare do crack. It's a fact. You can't even argue that ignorance, it's science.
But this is crazy, what's next public health care?! This is too crazy leftist, I'm going to go throw up. - Smoove, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9"if any of you are trying to support a family on $7-$10 bucks an hour i'd be surprised. I make that and I can barely afford rent and food for one person, I can't imaginehaving to take care of kids too."
Sounds like you're young--high school or college, maybe? When I was in college earning $8/hr, I said the same sorts of things about a "living wage," which was a new buzzword at the time. The thing is, very few of the people earning such low incomes are trying to support a family on it; most of them are young like yourself, or old and retired, or have a working spouse and/or two jobs.
The low- and minimum-wage jobs are mostly a stepping stone to better jobs, just as you yourself won't be earning under $10/hr forever. - brady47, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Sounds like it worked OK until Bush got there:
"Three in four families on welfare are headed by unmarried women. As a result, employment rates for all single women rose 25% before declining slightly since 2001. Earnings for the poorest 40% of families headed by women doubled from 1994 to 2000, before recession wiped out nearly half the gains. Poverty rates for children fell 25% before rising 10% since 2000." - kalisphoenix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"If you don't have to fight for your own survival, you are just a parasite."
If you let other people die because of your own selfishness, you are a libertarian.
In the real world, in the United States, in the 21st century, there are people who are basically *****. Do they deserve to be supported, seeing as how abandoning them leads to disease, hard substance abuse, promiscuity, crime, and a sustained drag on the economy as well as the social fabric of the country? Absolutely. If you don't want to support them, that's great. Change the laws or move the ***** out of the country. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Somebody please go read some Buckmister Fuller, quick!
Given current technology and resources, there is absolutely no excuse for anyone on earth having to work more than 3 or 4 hours a day unless they really wanted to, and no excuse for anyone not having access to all the luxuries we've managed to develop.
The economy continues to be based on the principle of scarcity not because this model still fits the real world, but rather to the end of maintaining POWER for a handful of terrible individuals. - farstar, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8honkeyman5000,
You give people too much credit. If left to their own devices, humans are inherntly selfish. People pay taxes because they are required too. Those that can afford to cheat and pay less (or none) too often do. A govenrment should be taked with the basic wellfare (not wellfare as it's being discussed here) of all of it's citizens.
No revenue means no money for social programs like social security and medicare/medicade. These are big ticket items and taking from them is taking from the most defenseless portion of our society, the elderly.
Also, wars cost money and we seem to like fighting them as long as we're winning.
Therefore, we need taxes to fund these things. - Thraxamer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Yeesh. I'm officially middle-class, and -I- can't afford 2 cars or a house. The poorer people that live near my apartment complex certainly don't fare better than me. Of course, I'm in an urban area. If I lived in rural America, as I once did, I could earn 1/2 my salary (offically putting my family in the upper tier of the "poor" bracket, nationally) and still afford a 2 bedroom starter home. Those stats as quoted really only tell a portion of the story.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"But, if you talk to any economist, including ever single professor I've had icollege, the deadweight loss from corporate welfare is not only much more expensive (in dollars) but also impedes the functions of a free market system much more than social welfare."
I doubt it's more expensive than welfare, social security, medicaire, etc. (just look at the budget), but corporate welfare is a problem. The solution is strict separation of business and govt. - TimDigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Believe it or not, a good number of the poor really don't understand healthy eating (or the healthy feeding of their children) even though it's extremely basic knowledge. They really don't understand that buying groceries and cooking -- if you have the time -- can actually save you money if you know how to do it."
The time component is crucial here. As a fast food manager my mom worked insane hours and still does. There are close shifts(4pm - 4am) and open shifts(4am - 4pm). In fact most of the jobs the working poor do not have a strict schedule to plan life around. Ask a member of the working poor what there schedule will be a month from now and they will probably respond "I dunno my boss hasn't made the schedule yet" - flyinbuddha, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7probably because the article itself is slanted.
"A decade later, the worst fears of liberals haven't materialized. " implys that all liberals were against welfare reform. So are all democrats liberal? Were ALL liberals against reform?
IMHO the submitter made his summary more even handed and un-biased than the supposedly un-biased news source. - graystar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"You give people too much credit. If left to their own devices, humans are inherntly selfish."
So do you think the people running the government programs are selfish too? They get paid whether they help the poor or not. - TacitusBen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I had heard just 2 years ago that teen pregnancy rates were rampantly high. I'm confused now.
- Vive42, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5i'm almost thirty actually, and out of both college and grad school. im just really idealistic. so i chose to be a "social worker". aka "sucker". but at least i dont interact much with coporate america. i hear they're bastards.
- LiterateWolf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Vote Libertarian? Why would I vote for a party that bases it platform on Ayn Rand novels? Why not Mark Twain or some other writer that has a proper education?
- Smoove, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"Yeesh. I'm officially middle-class, and -I- can't afford 2 cars or a house. The poorer people that live near my apartment complex certainly don't fare better than me. Of course, I'm in an urban area."
You almost certainly CAN afford a car--what you can't afford is parking. :-) - vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Ummm yeah... The President does not make laws... "
The President introduces bills or rather suggestions... Congress squables over the said bill and makes changes and even introduces their own bills... BUT!
The President is always responsible for allowing bills to pass into laws by signing them. He can veto them if his disaproves (baring congress over ride) but a president is always responsible for laws that are passed.
To say congress made them is a fallicy because without the presidents support they won't become laws (of course the same could be said of congress having to pass them first) - tjblaze, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4First of all we need to get off the liberal vs. conservative thing. This bill was signed by a "liberal" President. Remember the good old days when politicians were statesmen who worked with one another.
I was surprised at the writer's assertion that child poverty rates had fallen, so I looked it up. Indeed, since the bill was signed they have fallen. But they have been rising again since 2001. - jcmead, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ LiterateWolf
Come to Florida. You are required to have several interviews per month to get unemployment - Moly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3If any of you have been to a "third world" country, you might also be surprised by what they have. I've been to three, and I know I was. In one of the nations, the people lived in a cinder block house (say "low maintenance", and "hurricane proof"), and in one case a kid was running home from the local store with a VHS tape in hand.
I'm not saying that EVERY third-world country is like that. I'm just saying that our impressions of what poverty is and is not may not always resemble reality. - Bobski, on 10/12/2007, -12/+14Welfare = Democrats (LBJ started the whole thing, remember kids?)
Reform = Republicans (Get off your sorry ass and work for a living) - Vive42, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6yes, we do have a high standard of living in America. congratulations for having grasped that fact. As someone who has lived under the poverty line and has worked in social work with families in poverty I can personally assure you that us poor folks try not to enjoy our luxuries too much, being too worried about paying rent or working extra hours to pay for car repairs. and daycare? who needs daycare! the state can take the children away and give them to other poor families that wil get money for them! no wait that doesnt make sense at all....
- evilTak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4It's difficult to have personal responsibility when you're not educated as to what responsibility is.
Most teenage and unwanted pregnancies are a result of a lack of education. It's stupidly ironic how much the same crowd that shouts, "Personal responsibility!" is also the same crowd that shouts, "Teach nothing but abstinence!" Areas with decent sex education programs in the schools have demonstrably lower teen pregnancy rates than similar areas that don't. People aren't getting pregnant because they want to; they're getting pregnant because they don't know how to prevent it.
It's the same with personal finance. When you've got credit card companies telling you that having six credit cards is a great way to improve your credit rating, and nobody's taught you what the catches are or how to manage your finances, you're not going to do as well as somebody who's better informed.
It's easier to play the game once you understand the rules. - pollardito, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2it says right in the description that Daniel Patrick Moynahan opposed it, are they really hiding the liberal viewpoint?
- Moly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2$7-$10 an hour? We START our employees at $10.
- anodos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I believe welfare as it exists today is based on the idea that if you take care of people's need for food, money, clothing, and housing, then they will be in a place where their natural "goodness" can flourish, and they will look for work or otherwise be a productive member of society. This isn't always true. Some people have real emotional, psychological, or moral issues they need to work through before they are ready to stand alone, and their greatest help could come in the form of a mentor - someone willing to work with them and get them back on their feet.
I'm a Christian and see many Christian groups criticize government welfare, with some groups actively lobbying to eliminate welfare. Fine, but Christians in America need to realize their own hypocrisy here. Our Bible tells us we are to care for the poor, the needy, the homeless, the fatherless, the window, etc. Some fine Christians do this, but the vast majority do little to nothing. The little they do is only to sooth their own minds, and few are willing to roll up their sleeves and work directly one on one with the needy. My personal belief is that if Christians (and the religious in general) were really practicing what they say they believe, then the government would have little need to take over the responsibility of welfare. Most religions teach that we should willingly and voluntarily help the needy, which produces all sorts of healthy benefits, such as mentoring, accountability, aid custom tailored to each person's need, and so on. When the government steps in, it forces care for the needy upon the unwilling (by taking money via taxes from those who normally would be unwilling to help the needy), and then creates a generalized plan for applying that aid. Government welfare is only an indicator of a deeper problem in our society. As a Christian, my personal belief is that this deeper problem is our failure to care for each other as we ought. Rather than attacking government welfare, the religious crowd should tend to their own souls and sacrifice a little. This would be far more beneficial in the long run for everyone involved.
As an aside, welfare has many effects that take multiple generations before they impact society and the economy, and the impact is often in a form that is not obviously connected with welfare. I believe we have yet to see the full effect of welfare on this country. - SmeRndmGy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8"Corporate American does not exist....."
If corporate America didn't exist, we would have net neutrality guaranteed already. We wouldn't be harassing Russia to shut down allofmp3. We wouldn't be forcing other countries to raid torrent sites that are perfectly legal in that country. Face it, corporations have a HUGE say in how this country is run, much more than your average citizen. If the choice comes down to acting in the interest of the people, or acting in the interest of the huge company that bribed, errr, lobbied him, a lot of politicians will act against the American people. Yes, it sucks, but denying that it exists will not solve the problem. - jquixote, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I, for one, am in favor of helping out those who need it. All philosophy and politics aside, I just feel compelled to help someone that is in an unfortunate position. So, rather than giving money out, which deprived humans will tend to abuse unfortunately, instead we should focus on providing food, water, shelter, and education. If your a selfish or hyper-individualist person, remember: The better off the group is, the better off you will be. Simple mechanics.
- dbstovall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Actually, though an extreme case there is a silver lining to that individual's story.
'For Michelle Gordon, making ends meet these days depends on two lawn mowers, two trimmers and a broom. "I'm living with my mother. I'm 40 years old," she says.
She uses her experience as a lesson to her children. Daughter Essence, 19, has a high school diploma and a job and is attending college. Son Geno, 17, also has a summer job. Daughter Zoila, 15, says she won't have kids until she's married and established in life. The family gets food stamps, and the youngest two are on Medicaid, but they no longer get cash benefits.
The roller coaster Gordon has been riding for 10 years has made her less dependent on the government and more of a role model for her kids, she says.
"I'm not making $50,000 a year," she says, "but I'm keeping my head up, and I'm surviving."'
I think that is as important as anything. Changes like those that this woman's family are experiencing are generational. It may be that she never earns more than minimum wage and is mired in poverty her whole life, has no retirement to speak of, and is a burden to her children when she grows too old to work and care for herself. But her kids now see her as a role model. Her oldest has a job and is going to college. The lessons that they are learning are priceless and would have been much harder to learn had she remained on welfare her entire life. The likelihood that her children will have it as difficult as she has is very low. As for herself, she may not be doing a whole lot better than she had been before the reform, but I would be willing to bet that she is happier with herself, has more pride and confidence, and probably a better outlook on life. -
Show 51 - 100 of 117 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is