[SpamCop-Social] Re: any economists here?

[D.F. Manno]

In article <pete-5D6594.17103724112004 at news.cesmail.net>,
 Pete Stephenson <pete at heypete.com> wrote:

> Since welfare is not likely to go away anytime soon, I propose more 
> restrictive requirements for it. I understand that people can lose their 
> job, so why not provide some aid (maybe not enough to have the two cars, 
> the cellphone, cable TV, and other things that quite a few people below 
> the "poverty line" currently have

Pete, that's bullshit and you know it.

First, there are _already_ restrictive requirements on welfare benefits. 
You do remember Clinton's welfare reform law, don't you? Families with 
dependent children can only receive benefits for 60 months during the 
parent's lifetime through the Temporary Aid to Needy Families program. 
After two years there's a 20-hour-per-week work requirement.

For general assistance in Pennsylvania (funded by the state), the limit 
is even tighter for the able-bodied poor--_nine_ months over a lifetime 
for the able-bodied poor. For many of these recipients there are work 
requirements, too.

Second, the amounts aren't enough to be paying for cable TV or a cell 
phone. Under TANF, a family of three gets $403/mo. (Under general 
assistance the benefit is $205/mo.) I'd like to see you support a family 
of three on $4,836/year.

So get real and stop peddling these Reaganesque "welfare queen" lies.
-- 
D.F. Manno
dfm2a3l0t2 at spymac.com
"The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream
will never die."