Poor Americans would lose billions under Senate GOP tax bill

a reply to: JoshuaCox

The welfare haters really need a good dose of humility. It is easy to hate and demean social programs when you've never required their assistance, but when you end up in a bad way and need that money it's a different story. You quickly find out how little it is to survive on. Furthermore it is embarrassing and you are made to feel like # for using them. My parents were on food stamps for a while. It is certainly an eye opener comparing the reality of social programs with the conservative delusion.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

well, hud also has rental assistance, which unfortunately, is hard to get because of all the people who need the help and are on endless waiting lists.
and child care and chips, if they would fund it, the income limits is much higher.

when I was younger, my mom was able to get some help from the system before she was able to get on social security as a widow with no dependents. after my husband died, there really wasn't anything that would help me get a roof over my head so I just bypassed the system and instead depended on my kids and started selling off everything I could to make ends meet till I managed to get on disability.

all the states have different rules, depending on weather they want to add to the federal system, so it's not really uniform across the nation. what I was describing was the NY system and it's been awhile since I was really looking into it. back when one of my coworkers was lending money to our foreman and telling me just how great it was to be a single parent on welfare...

if you don't have kids, you seem to be basically screwed now days.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: olaru12

explain the growth under reagen then. more money for corps. they hire more people as they expand. more workers mean more tax cash. even at tax reduction/cut in the long run its a savings. its not hard to figure out.

Regan also increased federal spending and tripled the national debt to boost the economy.

So what? th eeconomy did very well is the bottom line here. And it gave clinton a huge surplus of money when he came into office. Stop seeing R's and D's here.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: olaru12

explain the growth under reagen then. more money for corps. they hire more people as they expand. more workers mean more tax cash. even at tax reduction/cut in the long run its a savings. its not hard to figure out.

Regan also increased federal spending and tripled the national debt to boost the economy.

So what? th eeconomy did very well is the bottom line here. And it gave clinton a huge surplus of money when he came into office. Stop seeing R's and D's here.

I didn't say the federal budget or debt increase was a bad thing.

Merely pointing out that you can't assign the growth under Regan to tax cuts for the wealthy.

The Clinton budget surplus was 98 . Not sure that had that much to do with Regan.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Oh please.

Politicians, government, and corporate greed has always been like this. Back in the first 150 years of the USA immigrants were brought in flocks for the soul purpose of votes. And then given that golden promise "the American dream".

It's the same with now days, just with jobs.

Not even close to accurate! Is that what they are teaching in the schools these days?? In the earlier years of the nation, we needed people to come, to populate the vast lands discovered, and to build the nation. We do not need them now. Claiming that's for votes is ridiculous. People came then for the freedom. More these days come for the freebies.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
The real issue here isn't that anyone is taking money from the poor; it's that less might be given, of tax dollars, to people. There is a lot of welfare abuse in this nation. States that have instituted a work requirement have seen drastic drops in poverty rates, and decreases in welfare enrollment. Too much is given out, the way it is now. Expecting people ho can work to work, or at least actually try, isn't unreasonable. There are people who are on welfare in our area, and the local food bank is strained, but there are always, ALWAYS, openings for entry-level jobs, and they tend to not be filled, with places being short staffed as a rule. Anyone, virtually, could get these jobs. I know, because someone I knew had offers, who was far from the "ideal" job candidate. Sloppy, crass, etc, and still got offers, but the jobs remain unfilled.

Job bank style jobs don't help people though. They hurt people. They occupy a persons time, and take away the opportunity to learn something they can make a career out of.

Giving people jobs only works, when those jobs have upward mobility and lead to better jobs in the future. Entry level jobs, that one cannot move up from simply trap people in poverty.

A person can work, and study, and do something else, if they are qualified. Some people aren't, and thus such jobs are fine for them. The real issue is that the cost of living is far higher now, and such positions don't pay enough. Someone working in a store, some decades back, could support a family. Perhaps not richly, but enough to get by. Not everyone is ever going to be rich.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I do believe that the work requirement is within the federal laws, and the only reason why some state were able to not enforce it was because they had high unemployment.. which most states unemployment numbers have decreased to the point where they are enforcing the work requirement. which means they either have to be in a job training program, doing community service, or be disabled or a single mom with very young children...
so I am assuming you are griping about the single moms with the young kids.

so, here ya go....
when someone on total welfare goes into the workforce, they will get extra money for childcare, they will get a clothing allowance, they will get additional money, might even get a car, for transportation, they will even get a little bit extra to cover the cost of their lunch!!! and then through the magic of some mathematical formula, the amount of money that they will be earning along with all those expenses, will be plugged in and a new benefit amount will be spit out... which guess what, if you are talking about one of those entry level jobs.... they walk away with a bigger benefit amount after all is said and done!! so unless those entry level jobs can lead to much higher wages within a few years, the burden to the taxpayers are really much higher. so much higher it might be better to let those single moms stay home and raise the next generation which according the the right is their primary job anyways!!!

more than likely if you start taxing the people who are on these programs the only result will be that the programs will have to readjust their income guidelines to accommodate the fact that their paychecks don't have the spending power they used to because of the taxes..

I don't know where you get your data, but welfare programs do not tend to provide cars, etc. Sources for all of that?? For anywhere??

As for the rest, no, a single mother doesn't have some automatic right to a lot of free stuff. I was a single mom for a few years, had to live with the parents for a while, and could barely afford to ge by once I did move. Never got a single PENNY of aid, either. Earned just enough to cover a reduced rent apartment (not subsidized; the place had financial issues), no frills, no car payment, etc, and was told I made "too much" to qualify. Oh, but I didn't count, since I was white.

a reply to: ScepticScot

actually we had 20 yrs of good economy after reagan till after clinton left.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
A person can work, and study, and do something else, if they are qualified. Some people aren't, and thus such jobs are fine for them. The real issue is that the cost of living is far higher now, and such positions don't pay enough. Someone working in a store, some decades back, could support a family. Perhaps not richly, but enough to get by. Not everyone is ever going to be rich.

Then perhaps that says working in a store isn't the career path we should be sending people on. It seems to me like that's just setting them up for failure.

originally posted by: yuppa
So what? th eeconomy did very well is the bottom line here. And it gave clinton a huge surplus of money when he came into office. Stop seeing R's and D's here.

The economy did not do well, it was basically unchecked deficit spending. That's false growth.

It is easy to hate and demean social programs when you've never required their assistance, but when you end up in a bad way and need that money it's a different story

You mean like all the Republicans in Texas demanding more hurricane money from the government? Hypocrites.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: ScepticScot

actually we had 20 yrs of good economy after reagan till after clinton left.

One of the key reasons Clinton got elected was the slow recovery from the 1990 recession.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

www.stepcorp.org...

The federal TANF regulations make clear that states can use federal TANF and state maintenance of effort (MOE) funds to provide aid to employed families with transportation needs, including providing funds for families to purchase, insure, or repair a car.(30) Currently, a number of states, including Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska and Pennsylvania, have statewide programs that offer assistance to welfare recipients for leasing or purchasing a car. Many other states, including Colorado and Ohio, have county-run or local car purchase programs that are not statewide.(31)

States and counties can assist parents to become car owners in various ways. Payments or loans can be made directly to families for costs associated with owning a car. Funding can be provided to car donation programs. Assistance also can be provided for other costs associated with car purchase and use. As states and counties consider how to best assist low-income families with their transportation needs they face a number of programmatic and funding choices in the design of their programs.
www.cbpp.org...

it wasn't that you were white, it was that you made too much money according to their magical formulas, and you could have sat down with them and showed them on paper that clearly there was no way that you could have paid for even the basic necessities and they wouldn't have cared. I know, I've been there. only with me, I needed help with the medical care I needed to keep the ability to walk or at least the $2000 dollars the surgeon was demanding to do the surgery that was needed.
we both had a few options open to us. you may have been able to have another kid, and then you would have been eligible for more help, or you could have arranged for you boss to allow you to work less hours... and I could have kicked my husband out of the house, then I would have been eligible for help with the medical care that I needed...
but then, we'd have been going in the direct opposite direction that what common sense would have dictated we should be going for our future long term goals, wouldn't we?
I got the surgery I needed, but it took the intercession of a state congressman to get it, and we ended up with one insane medical bill we couldn't pay for, and this was some time ago. maybe it's changed but the question still remains, why did they want us dependent on their welfare system so badly? and while people blame the recipients to these programs, well, one should ask.. did they find themselves in a position similar to mine? where the only option is to allow themselves to lose everything they work for, fall to the bottom, just so they can have a decent roof over their head, or the medical care that they or their children need. do yous realize that back in the 90's, I know for a fact, that NY's social service system was recommending families to break up, just so extremely sick kids could get the care that they needed. the only other option was for them to surrender the kid to the foster care system.
the problem with the system was, maybe still is, you have to hit rock bottom before you get the kind of help you need... and sometimes, you hit it so hard, you are permanently damaged and are stuck there.

the system needs to be redesigned, the handouts should never end up being worth more than the people who are being denied for help can provide for themselves. to do so only increases the amount of proverty and has led to what we have today, where we have many in the middle class finding themselves hitting rock bottom.

originally posted by: dawnstarmaybe it's changed but the question still remains, why did they want us dependent on their welfare system so badly?

Umm... they didn't. That's why every option to get on it involved putting yourself in a worse position, and why it involved giving up much more than you would have otherwise gotten.

That's how most people say they want the system to work. A last resort rather than something that actually helps most people, because then they become dependent.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
A person can work, and study, and do something else, if they are qualified. Some people aren't, and thus such jobs are fine for them. The real issue is that the cost of living is far higher now, and such positions don't pay enough. Someone working in a store, some decades back, could support a family. Perhaps not richly, but enough to get by. Not everyone is ever going to be rich.

Then perhaps that says working in a store isn't the career path we should be sending people on. It seems to me like that's just setting them up for failure.

No, what it says is that the cot of living is too high. Housing costs alone are beyond ridiculous in many places. Utility companies tend o charge basically whatever they want, and that's gone way up, especially in recent years.

Working in the stores is work that is very needed, and isn't bad work, overall. If people were discouraged from seeking such jobs, how would we all manage? Automation would only raise costs even further, and would put more out of work.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Working in stores is neither lucrative or needed. Taking the local grocery store for example, which has slowly been shifting to online ordering. They could reduce overhead and employees significantly if they sold everything online, then bagged orders and delivered them to customers on pick up (or to their doors for a fee). There is zero reason to ever wander a store these days, and with that goes the usefulness of at least 50% of retail jobs.

How would people manage? Actually spend time getting educated and perform work society does need.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

www.stepcorp.org...

The federal TANF regulations make clear that states can use federal TANF and state maintenance of effort (MOE) funds to provide aid to employed families with transportation needs, including providing funds for families to purchase, insure, or repair a car.(30) Currently, a number of states, including Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska and Pennsylvania, have statewide programs that offer assistance to welfare recipients for leasing or purchasing a car. Many other states, including Colorado and Ohio, have county-run or local car purchase programs that are not statewide.(31)

States and counties can assist parents to become car owners in various ways. Payments or loans can be made directly to families for costs associated with owning a car. Funding can be provided to car donation programs. Assistance also can be provided for other costs associated with car purchase and use. As states and counties consider how to best assist low-income families with their transportation needs they face a number of programmatic and funding choices in the design of their programs.
www.cbpp.org...

Appreciate the info. Nothing I have seen before, and just wrong, as far as I am concerned. I saved for my first car, and was very low income, barely over minimum for a while, and after that still not much. I could barely afford rent under 400 a month, for two bedrooms.

it wasn't that you were white, it was that you made too much money according to their magical formulas, and you could have sat down with them and showed them on paper that clearly there was no way that you could have paid for even the basic necessities and they wouldn't have cared. I know, I've been there. only with me, I needed help with the medical care I needed to keep the ability to walk or at least the $2000 dollars the surgeon was demanding to do the surgery that was needed.

Ah, bu that is a factor, in a lot of places. I know someone who was flat out told, by a worker that cared, that if her surname had been Hispanic, she'd have received aid. I know people who were, when I was looking into it, got aid, that were not white, too.

we both had a few options open to us. you may have been able to have another kid, and then you would have been eligible for more help, or you could have arranged for you boss to allow you to work less hours... and I could have kicked my husband out of the house, then I would have been eligible for help with the medical care that I needed...
but then, we'd have been going in the direct opposite direction that what common sense would have dictated we should be going for our future long term goals, wouldn't we?

I was a single mom at the time, so no hubby to remove. Rent under $400 a month, no water bill (back then, many places included that in the rent), fairly low electric bill, no car payment (had an old car)< car insurance, groceries, and a basic cable bill (that or no TV), that was about $30 a month, and I still could barely afford food. Any medical costs, and I'd have been totally sunk! The system is broken in that regard. One shouldn't have to break up a family, or have a child just to get money, to obtain needed help. Seeing people who refused to work, getting money, while I struggled and worked, was quite annoying.

I got the surgery I needed, but it took the intercession of a state congressman to get it, and we ended up with one insane medical bill we couldn't pay for, and this was some time ago. maybe it's changed but the question still remains, why did they want us dependent on their welfare system so badly? and while people blame the recipients to these programs, well, one should ask.. did they find themselves in a position similar to mine? where the only option is to allow themselves to lose everything they work for, fall to the bottom, just so they can have a decent roof over their head, or the medical care that they or their children need. do yous realize that back in the 90's, I know for a fact, that NY's social service system was recommending families to break up, just so extremely sick kids could get the care that they needed. the only other option was for them to surrender the kid to the foster care system.
the problem with the system was, maybe still is, you have to hit rock bottom before you get the kind of help you need... and sometimes, you hit it so hard, you are permanently damaged and are stuck there.

the system needs to be redesigned, the handouts should never end up being worth more than the people who are being denied for help can provide for themselves. to do so only increases the amount of proverty and has led to what we have today, where we have many in the middle class finding themselves hitting rock bottom.

Yeah, that's a huge issue. I believe they want people dependent so that they can control them, and get votes. People who are dependent on the state for everything will vote for the guy offering the "free" stuff. Plus, if they pay all expenses, they have more control over the children, too, and that's another goal. Control the kids, and you can shape the society. How to fix it is the real issue!!

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyesOne shouldn't have to break up a family, or have a child just to get money, to obtain needed help. Seeing people who refused to work, getting money, while I struggled and worked, was quite annoying.

That's because Republicans constantly block welfare reform in the US. Welfare in the US is not meant to help adults, the system doesn't care about them at all. The only thing it cares about, and the primary metric it uses, is support for children so that they have food, clothing, and shelter.

There is plenty of criticism of this point, but not really any political will to change it.

originally posted by: CB328
The plan is to pay for the rich peoples' tax cuts by cutting 1.5 trillion out of medicare and medicaid over ten years. Those mainly support poor and old people.

That's terrible. But GOP is in the pockets of the military industrial complex. More money to cause wars around the world.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyesOne shouldn't have to break up a family, or have a child just to get money, to obtain needed help. Seeing people who refused to work, getting money, while I struggled and worked, was quite annoying.

That's because Republicans constantly block welfare reform in the US. Welfare in the US is not meant to help adults, the system doesn't care about them at all. The only thing it cares about, and the primary metric it uses, is support for children so that they have food, clothing, and shelter.

There is plenty of criticism of this point, but not really any political will to change it.

That's simply not true. One, "reform" isn't the same thing, depending on whom one asks. Two, adults can and do get help, in some situations, with no children involved. Have known someone who did.