Welfare to work
Tough love works
Jul 27th 2006
>From The Economist print edition
Why America's pathfinding reform holds lessons for other countries
A DECADE ago, Americans began a bold social experiment. In August 1996,
Bill Clinton signed into law the bill that introduced "welfare to work".
>Fro
Any thoughts on Charles Murrary's proposal to abolish the panoply of
government programs in exchange for a payment of $10,000 to each citizen:
http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/qa200603270732.asp?
David Shemano
^^
CB: Our counter offer is $30,000.00 per year for life, health insuran
Welfare to work
Tough love works
Jul 27th 2006
From The Economist print edition
Why America's pathfinding reform holds lessons for other countries
A DECADE ago, Americans began a bold social experiment. In August 1996,
Bill Clinton signed into law the bill that introduced "welfare to work".
From
Jayson Funke wrote:
Welfare to work
Tough love works
Jul 27th 2006
>From The Economist print edition
Most of the jobs taken by former claimants are poorly paid, but in general they
are doing somewhat better than when they were on welfare.
...and that's something to strive for: "doing somewhat
> Most of the jobs taken by former claimants are poorly paid, but in general
they are doing somewhat better than when they were on welfare.
...and that's something to strive for: "doing somewhat better than when
they were on welfare."
On 8/2/06, Leigh Meyers wrote:
Does that "somewhat better"
Jim Devine wrote:
the editorial does refer to a longer article in the ECONOMIST. Maybe
that's where the answers are.
If so, the "doing somewhat better than when they were on welfare." will
never know, because all the other parts of this series require a credit
card for a subscription to the Ec
Here you go, sorry, no greasy Indian peanut butter though. I've not read
this article.
AMERICA'S WELFARE REFORM
Jul 27th 2006
Ten years on, America's work-based welfare reforms have succeeded. Now
the country must think harder about the working poor and their children
SIX years ago, social worke
This reform as with most reforms these days represents
welfare for a segment of capitalist business, those
who are unwilling to pay a wage that would attract
those who are not in the extremest need. Even the
meagre welfare programmes in the US made welfare an
alternative. Now there is no competitio
Economist:
Ten years on, America's work-based welfare reforms have succeeded.
Goes to show that the writers at the Economist don't read Louis
Uchitelle in the NY Times. No mention of "four million missing men".
On the one hand, the sky didn't fall after welfare reform. On the
other hand, there
FWIW, SS disability benefits are not the same as SSI.
SS = social security
SS disabilty benefits are paid for by SS taxes.
SSI = supplemental security income.
According to the govt, SSI is a "Federal income supplement program
funded by general tax revenues (not Social Security taxes):
* It is
On Aug 2, 2006, at 1:44 PM, Jim Devine wrote:
Although both are administered by the SS administration, the first is
like an insurance program, while the second is a classic example of
the "dole."
If the ideals expressed by our forefathers in the Preamble to the US
Constitution ("promote the g
I didn't mean to imply that being on the "dole" was a bad thing. (It
seems a clearer term than "welfare.") In some ways, every American is
already on the "dole."
Ideally, there would be some sort of minimum yearly income. Though
it's possible under capitalism (I believe), it's not likely given th
Doesn't the general paradigm that The Economist subscribes to say that if
the alternatives were really better for these people, they would've gotten
off of welfare on their own volition?
>>
>> Most of the jobs taken by former claimants are poorly paid, but in
>> general they are doing somewhat bet
On 8/2/06, Walt Byars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Doesn't the general paradigm that The Economist subscribes to say that if
the alternatives were really better for these people, they would've gotten
off of welfare on their own volition?
it should indicate that, but they're also against raising t
Jim Devine writes:
>> I didn't mean to imply that being on the "dole" was a bad thing. (It
>> seems a clearer term than "welfare.") In some ways, every American is
>> already on the "dole."
>>
>> Ideally, there would be some sort of minimum yearly income. Though
>> it's possible under capitalism (
On 8/2/06, David B. Shemano wrote:
Any thoughts on Charles Murray's proposal to abolish the panoply of government
programs in exchange for a payment of $10,000 to each citizen: <
given the balance of political power, the net effect would likely be
to make the situation of working people wors
It is a one-shot deal that, like the minimum wage, would be unlikely to
increase with
the cost of living.
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 02:53:33PM -0700, David B. Shemano wrote:
>
> Any thoughts on Charles Murrary's proposal to abolish the panoply of
> government programs in exchange for a payment of
An earlier but less favorable evaluation
The Clinton Legacy for America.s Poor
David T. Ellwood and Rebecca M. Blank
July 2001
RWP01-028
http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=289957
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael
Michael Perelman wrote:
It is a one-shot deal that, like the minimum wage, would be unlikely to
increase with the cost of living.
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 02:53:33PM -0700, David B. Shemano wrote:
Any thoughts on Charles Murrary's proposal to abolish the panoply of government
programs in exch
No, it is $10,000 annually, but it is still and effort to buy off. He wants to
cut
all sorts of programs besides welfare. He claims that the $10k will be more
than the
country is now paying for these other programs, but given his reputation I would
distrust his numbers & don't have the time to
On 8/2/06, Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No, it is $10,000 annually, but it is still and effort to buy off. He wants to cutall sorts of programs besides welfare. He claims that the $10k will be more than thecountry is now paying for these other programs, but given his reputation I w
His proposal is "progressive" in the sense that those over some income, I
forget the
number get nothing. Only those below some income get the $10,000 & those in the
middle get less as their income increases.
Notice that as prices increase, so long as incomes increase also, even if real
incomes d
I am having a déja vu attack. Friedman's negative income tax was graduated, as
I recall, but otherwise similar.
>His proposal is "progressive" in the sense that those over some income, I
>forget the
>number get nothing. Only those below some income get the $10,000 & those in
>the
>middle get
One problem is that this would likely not apply to
corporate welfare bums and programs such as the no
competition deals in Iraq, the ag-business subsidies
and on and on. If each corporate bum got just ten
thousand in subsidies that would be a big plus and the
money saved could be used to increase g
raghu wrote:
Hypothetically, assume the best case scenario where each citizen does
receive annual payments of $10,000.00. Given the current levels of
indebtedness, how much of that on average would go towards
debt-servicing on the lower-end of the income scale?
I think that's where the scary pa
25 matches
Mail list logo
