Aa
Paul Ryan Poverty Speech Proposes Reforming Programs For The Poor
In his first policy speech since becoming the Republican vice presidential nominee, Paul Ryan said he and Mitt Romney will restore upward mobility and fight poverty in part by limiting the federal government's commitment to safety net programs.
"Upward mobility is the central promise of life in America," Ryan said. "But right now, America’s engines of upward mobility aren't working the way they should. Mitt Romney and I are running because we believe that Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility instead of a stagnant, government-directed economy that stifles job creation and fosters government dependency."
Ryan noted that Americans born into poor families are more likely to stay poor as adults than Americans born into wealthy families.
A Romney administration, Ryan said, would help restore mobility by turning the open-ended commitments of federal anti-poverty programs into "block grants" -- fixed chunks of money the federal government sends to states each year regardless of the amount of need. States, in turn, get more leeway to design their own programs.
"The federal government would continue to provide the resources, but we would remove the endless federal mandates and restrictions that hamper state efforts to make these programs more effective," Ryan said. "If the question is what's best for low-income Ohioans, shouldn’t we let Ohioans make that call?"
That's how a Republican Congress and Democratic President Bill Clinton reformed welfare in 1996, resulting, Ryan said, in reduced child poverty and increased employment among single mothers. (The success of the reform, however, is debatable; the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, for instance, has found that caseloads have declined as the number of families with children in poverty has increased.)
As a congressman, Ryan has authored several proposals to slash spending on programs for poor people by turning them into block grants. According to an analysis by the centrist Urban Institute, Ryan's proposal to repeal health care reform and block grant Medicaid, which provides health insurance to people below near-poverty income levels, would reduce federal spending by $1.7 trillion and Medicaid enrollment by 50 percent, resulting in a loss of insurance for 35.7 million Americans.
Ryan also proposed dramatic cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as food stamps, in place of looming cuts to defense spending. (During the third presidential debate on Monday, Romney said he did not support cutting food stamps.)
Part of the problem with programs that haven't received the block grant treatment, Ryan said, is that they perpetuate "government dependency." But he also said government spending itself is a threat to people who rely on safety net programs for food and health care.
"When government’s own finances collapse, society's most vulnerable are the first victims, as we are seeing right now in the troubled welfare states of Europe," he said. "Many there feel that they have nowhere to turn for help, and we must never let that happen in America."
Ryan also said government spending discourages people from giving to charity. "Debt on this scale is destructive in so many ways, and one of them is that it crowds out civil society by drawing resources away from private giving."
Economists at the St. Louis Federal Reserve found in 2009 that increased government spending can have a limited negative effect on charitable donations, but also that growth in charitable giving had paralleled growth in government spending over the past 40 years (PDF).
A Romney administration, Ryan said, would seek balance between "allowing government to act for the common good, while leaving private groups free to do the work that only they can do."
To Americans who feel left out of America's promise, Ryan said, "I ask you to support our campaign, because our cause is yours, and yours is ours, and together we can achieve great things."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/paul-ryan-poverty-speech_n_2010827.html
"Upward mobility is the central promise of life in America," Ryan said. "But right now, America’s engines of upward mobility aren't working the way they should. Mitt Romney and I are running because we believe that Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility instead of a stagnant, government-directed economy that stifles job creation and fosters government dependency."
Ryan noted that Americans born into poor families are more likely to stay poor as adults than Americans born into wealthy families.
A Romney administration, Ryan said, would help restore mobility by turning the open-ended commitments of federal anti-poverty programs into "block grants" -- fixed chunks of money the federal government sends to states each year regardless of the amount of need. States, in turn, get more leeway to design their own programs.
"The federal government would continue to provide the resources, but we would remove the endless federal mandates and restrictions that hamper state efforts to make these programs more effective," Ryan said. "If the question is what's best for low-income Ohioans, shouldn’t we let Ohioans make that call?"
That's how a Republican Congress and Democratic President Bill Clinton reformed welfare in 1996, resulting, Ryan said, in reduced child poverty and increased employment among single mothers. (The success of the reform, however, is debatable; the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, for instance, has found that caseloads have declined as the number of families with children in poverty has increased.)
As a congressman, Ryan has authored several proposals to slash spending on programs for poor people by turning them into block grants. According to an analysis by the centrist Urban Institute, Ryan's proposal to repeal health care reform and block grant Medicaid, which provides health insurance to people below near-poverty income levels, would reduce federal spending by $1.7 trillion and Medicaid enrollment by 50 percent, resulting in a loss of insurance for 35.7 million Americans.
Ryan also proposed dramatic cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as food stamps, in place of looming cuts to defense spending. (During the third presidential debate on Monday, Romney said he did not support cutting food stamps.)
Part of the problem with programs that haven't received the block grant treatment, Ryan said, is that they perpetuate "government dependency." But he also said government spending itself is a threat to people who rely on safety net programs for food and health care.
"When government’s own finances collapse, society's most vulnerable are the first victims, as we are seeing right now in the troubled welfare states of Europe," he said. "Many there feel that they have nowhere to turn for help, and we must never let that happen in America."
Ryan also said government spending discourages people from giving to charity. "Debt on this scale is destructive in so many ways, and one of them is that it crowds out civil society by drawing resources away from private giving."
Economists at the St. Louis Federal Reserve found in 2009 that increased government spending can have a limited negative effect on charitable donations, but also that growth in charitable giving had paralleled growth in government spending over the past 40 years (PDF).
A Romney administration, Ryan said, would seek balance between "allowing government to act for the common good, while leaving private groups free to do the work that only they can do."
To Americans who feel left out of America's promise, Ryan said, "I ask you to support our campaign, because our cause is yours, and yours is ours, and together we can achieve great things."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/paul-ryan-poverty-speech_n_2010827.html
LOL, Seriously, we have beat the political horse to death. We ALL just keep saying the same things over and over and over and over! Then someone gets snarky and all bets are off! Yes, it may be time to just ditch the politics cause the next couple of weeks is going to be bad, for all of us. LOL, Im lucky, Im getting busy at work! rofl
Yes yes yes yes!!!!! Let's talk about......ANYTHING! lol. I vote we ban political talk until after the election...ok, I know my vote will get vetoed and it's not possible, but this election can seriously not come soon enough. And I will tell you all this.....whomever has the candidate who wins can celebrate, but any gloating or rubbing salt into wounds, and I am seriously coming through the screen and beating you!!!! Yep, the b is going to come out. There is only 1 person in the history of my time on MH that has made me go there, but I WILL GO THERE (I would be very afraid if I were all of you...lol)
Note: I am much tougher hiding behind a screen then I am in person, but am hoping threats do the trick....ha.
Note: I am much tougher hiding behind a screen then I am in person, but am hoping threats do the trick....ha.
LOL, I think we need to find something other than politics before it gets any crazier around here. Larry, Curly and Moe? LOL
Now nursegirl you've done it.
You called me silly. ( I think you did anyway)
And we all know El is silly.
So, how about that ? El and I have found something in common~silliness :)
Long live the three stooges.
You called me silly. ( I think you did anyway)
And we all know El is silly.
So, how about that ? El and I have found something in common~silliness :)
Long live the three stooges.
I second that, Amanda. So well said.
How people can forget, in all this mess, in all the labels, and stupid news articles, and signs, and buttons, and debates....that we ALL fundamentally want the same thing...a BETTER America. Better for ourselves, and for our children, and their children.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the party divide in this country is our BIGGEST downfall, no matter who is sitting in the WH.
How people can forget, in all this mess, in all the labels, and stupid news articles, and signs, and buttons, and debates....that we ALL fundamentally want the same thing...a BETTER America. Better for ourselves, and for our children, and their children.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the party divide in this country is our BIGGEST downfall, no matter who is sitting in the WH.
You always have such wisdom. I appreciate it.
Oh, I won't...:-)
I love that we are talking about labels. I wholeheartedly agree that people are people and political affiliation does not define any individual here. We all have our reasons for leaning one way or the other politically, and all have specific points important to us. But it does not mean anyone is anything but the person they are. Kind is kind, mean is mean and it exists everywhere. Being more liberal then some does not mean I am a better person then someone else. Honestly, I'm sick of the way this forum seems to have become red vs. blue. I'm sick of this election and just want it over. People are getting hurt and I hate it.
"...In my opinion labels are not an accurate way to portray individuals..."
Really... so you wouldn't label yourself a "Democrat"?
I'm not disagreeing with the STATEMENT. I'm disagreeing with the fact that YOU said it, and truly believe that it applies to you.
It's kind f funny that you see yourself one way, when you look in the mirror, but if you talk to someone that's reading your writing/posts/comments, they'll see it 180 degrees to the opposite.
Just an observation, but you seem to put labels on almost everything. Rich, poor, republican, democrat, liberal, conservative, etc, etc.
"...I'm conservative about somethings and liberal about others..." I mean, you just "labeled" yourself both a conservative AND A liberal.
(I'm splitting hairs now;-)
Really... so you wouldn't label yourself a "Democrat"?
I'm not disagreeing with the STATEMENT. I'm disagreeing with the fact that YOU said it, and truly believe that it applies to you.
It's kind f funny that you see yourself one way, when you look in the mirror, but if you talk to someone that's reading your writing/posts/comments, they'll see it 180 degrees to the opposite.
Just an observation, but you seem to put labels on almost everything. Rich, poor, republican, democrat, liberal, conservative, etc, etc.
"...I'm conservative about somethings and liberal about others..." I mean, you just "labeled" yourself both a conservative AND A liberal.
(I'm splitting hairs now;-)
My first sentence above is missing the word 'hard'. It's sometimes hard for me to believe . . .
People are people and we all believe we are doing the right thing.
In my opinion labels are not an accurate way to portray individuals.
I'm conservative about somethings and liberal about others.
Peace, y'all.
Nicely said.
It's the generalizations I despise. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate me characterizing you as being a silly pot smoking tree hugger, right? (No offense to any silly, pot smoking tree huggers we have in attendance of course)
These age old sterotypes asre stupid. I don't think all you liberals are lazy people looking for a handout, I would hope people didnt assume I (or all pubs) are greedy, money hungry bastards.
**** ****** **** **** *** ***** **** ****
Respectfully,
Rivll .
ROFLMAO....don't hold back rivil! LOL
In my opinion labels are not an accurate way to portray individuals.
I'm conservative about somethings and liberal about others.
Peace, y'all.
Nicely said.
It's the generalizations I despise. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate me characterizing you as being a silly pot smoking tree hugger, right? (No offense to any silly, pot smoking tree huggers we have in attendance of course)
These age old sterotypes asre stupid. I don't think all you liberals are lazy people looking for a handout, I would hope people didnt assume I (or all pubs) are greedy, money hungry bastards.
**** ****** **** **** *** ***** **** ****
Respectfully,
Rivll .
ROFLMAO....don't hold back rivil! LOL
It's sometimes, in all seriousness, for me to believe that Obama has my best interest at heart as well. I've never really believed in him after about a year into his presidency. Honest truth.
I am fully aware that we are quite divided in who we think would do a better job for all of America's people.
Vote everyone and be heard!
I am fully aware that we are quite divided in who we think would do a better job for all of America's people.
Vote everyone and be heard!
It's hard for some of us to believe Romney cares about much other than his personal ambitious goals.
I accept that you believe he cares.
I accept that you believe he cares.
This I agree with!
I also think that it is common here to characterize Romney as uncaring and I just don't believe that. He too has the best of intentions to help all of our countries citizens even if he comes at it differently than Obama.
I also think that it is common here to characterize Romney as uncaring and I just don't believe that. He too has the best of intentions to help all of our countries citizens even if he comes at it differently than Obama.
People are people and we all believe we are doing the right thing.
In my opinion labels are not an accurate way to portray individuals.
I'm conservative about somethings and liberal about others.
Peace, y'all.
In my opinion labels are not an accurate way to portray individuals.
I'm conservative about somethings and liberal about others.
Peace, y'all.
**** ****** **** **** *** ***** **** ****
Respectfully,
Rivll
Respectfully,
Rivll
#1: Democrats/Liberals are caring and benevolent and understanding and are at the forefront of knowledge when it comes to poor people (less fortunate people) and their needs.
#2: Republicans/Conservatives are cold-hearted and uncaring and misinformed and ignorant of the issues and don't know the first thing about what poor people (less fortunate people) are all about.
#1 is how the Left, here in the CE-Forum, see themselves.
#2 is how the Left, here in the CE-Forum, see the Right.
#2: Republicans/Conservatives are cold-hearted and uncaring and misinformed and ignorant of the issues and don't know the first thing about what poor people (less fortunate people) are all about.
#1 is how the Left, here in the CE-Forum, see themselves.
#2 is how the Left, here in the CE-Forum, see the Right.
I wrote what I did because at times that implied message is one that I sense. Isn't that an old cliche "bleeding heart liberal"? Well, those that are wishing for welfare reform also have deep feelings and concerns for others even if they come at working the issues out in a different way. I don't think Democrats are the only ones with good intentions in the things they stand for is all I am saying.
So you were referring to my post? Do you have an issue with me? I did not direct my response to you did I? Yet you seem to think I did somehow? Let me clarify. I was speaking in a general sense and responding to the article. Don't know what or how you got me saying you were uncaring out of that at all?
Unless of course the line I responded to was something you personally wrote and not the article?
Unless of course the line I responded to was something you personally wrote and not the article?
I'm with rivil on this one, who wrote this web site and who is behind it.
All I could find was the following:
Legal Disclaimer
This web site is a general service that provides information related to legal-based topics over the Internet. We are not a law firm and our owners and employees are not acting as your attorney.
All I could find was the following:
Legal Disclaimer
This web site is a general service that provides information related to legal-based topics over the Internet. We are not a law firm and our owners and employees are not acting as your attorney.
No no no Amanda! I wasn't talking about you. I was speaking in general, and based on teko's comments:
There is no comprehension here at all for how poor people actually live and the disadvantages they have to overcome to succeed in this world.
So how can you put programs in place to help them - when you don't even understand the issues.
Might I suggest a month long romp, living like the poorest of the poor. Education is a good thing. .
I just hate assumptions. Assumptions that because a person might feel there needs to be a tougher system in place, that somehow, they are a callous, cold, uncaring a$$. Couldn't be farther from the truth.
There is no comprehension here at all for how poor people actually live and the disadvantages they have to overcome to succeed in this world.
So how can you put programs in place to help them - when you don't even understand the issues.
Might I suggest a month long romp, living like the poorest of the poor. Education is a good thing. .
I just hate assumptions. Assumptions that because a person might feel there needs to be a tougher system in place, that somehow, they are a callous, cold, uncaring a$$. Couldn't be farther from the truth.
Oh my gosh, I am so sorry if you got the impression I thought you were cold and uncaring because you believe in welfare reform. That is not at all what I was trying to say.
I too am very pro welfare reform. I agree that welfare fraud and misuse of the system in general is a huge problem. Where our opinions differ is in how to do it - and even that is just a partial disagreement. I agree with many of the points offered.
I do not at all think you cold and uncaring. There is no question reform is necessary - it's just the how to do it.
I too am very pro welfare reform. I agree that welfare fraud and misuse of the system in general is a huge problem. Where our opinions differ is in how to do it - and even that is just a partial disagreement. I agree with many of the points offered.
I do not at all think you cold and uncaring. There is no question reform is necessary - it's just the how to do it.
It does bother me that if you speak in terms of having any expections of those receiving benefits that you are considered cold hearted or not caring. That really isn't true. My heart bleeds for people suffering and finding the right way to help them make their lives better is a common goal that most have. .
Exactly.
Exactly.
I must say first that I'm glad our country has programs in place to help support those who are struggling through the challenges of great poverty. That is the right thing to do for sure.
I also am in agreement that is okay to have some expectations of those who receive the benefits. Drug testing does many things. If someone depends on the benefits, perhaps the 'casual' usage of drugs would go down. Casual usage of drugs can lead to many bad things including addiction, an atomosphere in a home that is less than ideal for role modeling to kids, etc. As a deterrent to using drugs casually, drug testing makes sense. For those with addiction problems, transparency to that is important in my opinion. For the sake of the kids in that home, for the sake of the individual in terms of providing some resources on addiction, etc. So, I have absolutely no problem with drug testing for anyone.
As NG talks about, most employers require drug testing. Good idea in my opinion so having similar expectations of those receiving govt. benefits makes sense to me.
I also wish that there was a way to encourage working within the group that receive benefits. Some don't get a job because it interferes with their benefits. I think that we should work with them so that they can work and supplement with the benefits rather than it being an all or nothing. I also wouldn't mind if some receiving medicaid didn't have some type of work requirement associated with receiving it. We aren't talking about social security folks that can't work due to disability or illness/injury but rather people that would be able to work. Not sure what that would look like but worth investigating in my opinion.
Some of the programs in my state require those on benefits to do certain things like taking classes. The classes though should be more geared to job training. My cousin taught a self esteem class at a community college for welfare recipients in our state. Not dissing my cousin . . . but those folks probably didn't come out from that program with anything tangible to get a job.
It does bother me that if you speak in terms of having any expections of those receiving benefits that you are considered cold hearted or not caring. That really isn't true. My heart bleeds for people suffering and finding the right way to help them make their lives better is a common goal that most have.
I also am in agreement that is okay to have some expectations of those who receive the benefits. Drug testing does many things. If someone depends on the benefits, perhaps the 'casual' usage of drugs would go down. Casual usage of drugs can lead to many bad things including addiction, an atomosphere in a home that is less than ideal for role modeling to kids, etc. As a deterrent to using drugs casually, drug testing makes sense. For those with addiction problems, transparency to that is important in my opinion. For the sake of the kids in that home, for the sake of the individual in terms of providing some resources on addiction, etc. So, I have absolutely no problem with drug testing for anyone.
As NG talks about, most employers require drug testing. Good idea in my opinion so having similar expectations of those receiving govt. benefits makes sense to me.
I also wish that there was a way to encourage working within the group that receive benefits. Some don't get a job because it interferes with their benefits. I think that we should work with them so that they can work and supplement with the benefits rather than it being an all or nothing. I also wouldn't mind if some receiving medicaid didn't have some type of work requirement associated with receiving it. We aren't talking about social security folks that can't work due to disability or illness/injury but rather people that would be able to work. Not sure what that would look like but worth investigating in my opinion.
Some of the programs in my state require those on benefits to do certain things like taking classes. The classes though should be more geared to job training. My cousin taught a self esteem class at a community college for welfare recipients in our state. Not dissing my cousin . . . but those folks probably didn't come out from that program with anything tangible to get a job.
It does bother me that if you speak in terms of having any expections of those receiving benefits that you are considered cold hearted or not caring. That really isn't true. My heart bleeds for people suffering and finding the right way to help them make their lives better is a common goal that most have.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
