Democratic National Convention **live commentary thread**

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes it did, as your graph shows.

If you want to show that welfare reform is a failure, then showing that fewer people received government cash is not how to do it. Quite the reverse as it shows that it achieved one of its goals.  You'd need to show that those people below the poverty line are significantly worse off today than they were before TANF replaced AFDC.

Also, I consider the EITC to be a far preferable way of providing assistance to the working poor.

The point is it's largely been a success at what it was designed to do: drop people off the program. I don't see any evidence that these families are better off with TANF (which is hardly a replacement for AFDC especially with its ridiculously low benefits and lifetime time limits), the only difference is now they have one less thing to rely on.

Very touching, but where's the evidence that these families are worse off?

[greenforest32]

Yes it did, as your graph shows.

If you want to show that welfare reform is a failure, then showing that fewer people received government cash is not how to do it. Quite the reverse as it shows that it achieved one of its goals.  You'd need to show that those people below the poverty line are significantly worse off today than they were before TANF replaced AFDC.

Also, I consider the EITC to be a far preferable way of providing assistance to the working poor.

The point is it's largely been a success at what it was designed to do: drop people off the program. I don't see any evidence that these families are better off with TANF (which is hardly a replacement for AFDC especially with its ridiculously low benefits and lifetime time limits), the only difference is now they have one less thing to rely on.

Very touching, but where's the evidence that these families are worse off?

Seriously, what's the likelihood this change has made them better off? What are you going to measure? It's just like Santorum bragging about how it "gave people hope". "They're free from government dependence so that makes them better off."

I think what it is is that we don't care and therefore this is a popular budget cut.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes it did, as your graph shows.

If you want to show that welfare reform is a failure, then showing that fewer people received government cash is not how to do it. Quite the reverse as it shows that it achieved one of its goals.  You'd need to show that those people below the poverty line are significantly worse off today than they were before TANF replaced AFDC.

Also, I consider the EITC to be a far preferable way of providing assistance to the working poor.

The point is it's largely been a success at what it was designed to do: drop people off the program. I don't see any evidence that these families are better off with TANF (which is hardly a replacement for AFDC especially with its ridiculously low benefits and lifetime time limits), the only difference is now they have one less thing to rely on.

Very touching, but where's the evidence that these families are worse off?

Seriously, what's the likelihood this change has made them better off? What are you going to measure? It's just like Santorum bragging about how it "gave people hope". "They're free from government dependence so that makes them better off."

I think what it is is that we don't care and therefore this is a popular budget cut.

You seem to enjoy playing into the conservative stereotype that liberals love to spend money without bothering to see if it is doing anything.  Surely if it is "bad" that the government no longer shovels money out the door without bothering to see whether it is actually doing good, you'd be able to find some metric that shows that.  All that the one metric you've bothered to present so far is that the switch from AFDC to TANF has reduced the size of the welfare rolls. Since getting people who are able to work off of welfare is in general a good thing, I don't find your argument so far at all persuasive.

[greenforest32]

You seem to enjoy playing into the conservative stereotype that liberals love to spend money without bothering to see if it is doing anything.  Surely if it is "bad" that the government no longer shovels money out the door without bothering to see whether it is actually doing good, you'd be able to find some metric that shows that.  All that the one metric you've bothered to present so far is that the switch from AFDC to TANF has reduced the size of the welfare rolls. Since getting people who are able to work off of welfare is in general a good thing, I don't find your argument so far at all persuasive.

The 'doing anything' is paying the bills obviously which you could point to the homeless population alone as one that the safety net doesn't reach as TANF requires children for eligibility and reducing the size of the rolls in spite of no decrease in (originally eligible) demand stands out clearly which is what that chart shows: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3700

[Yank2133]

Michelle's going a little overboard with the poverty and devastation.

The problem is the disconnect between the rhetoric and the reality.  I think it will all come down to Friday.

What happens on Friday?

A job report that will fundamentally and permanently alter the state of the race, despite none of the previous job reports really affecting it at all.

GOP have to keep hope.........

No, the Democrats have to hope it is good, or the change for the worse.

Just like the last 3 months eh?

[Eraserhead]

Michelle's going a little overboard with the poverty and devastation.

The problem is the disconnect between the rhetoric and the reality.  I think it will all come down to Friday.

What happens on Friday?

A job report that will fundamentally and permanently alter the state of the race, despite none of the previous job reports really affecting it at all.

GOP have to keep hope.........

No, the Democrats have to hope it is good, or the change for the worse.

If it is good, we'll never here you mention it again.

[Bacon King]

Michelle's going a little overboard with the poverty and devastation.

The problem is the disconnect between the rhetoric and the reality.  I think it will all come down to Friday.

What happens on Friday?

A job report that will fundamentally and permanently alter the state of the race, despite none of the previous job reports really affecting it at all.

GOP have to keep hope.........

No, the Democrats have to hope it is good, or the change for the worse.

How much cognitive dissonance, or doublethink, or whatever you want to call it, does this election require on your part? I mean, I don't doubt you want the American economy to improve, but at the same time you actively support Romney over Obama; these two desires certainly conflict with each other, as an unexpectedly astounding drop in the unemployment rate would be great news for the country, but it would also decimate the Republican party's biggest argument to support Romney over Obama in this election.

I don't mean to be caustic, but how exactly do you reconcile these conflicting views? Would you rather have good economic news and an Obama reelection, or do you hope for a high unemployment rate in the hope that it would lead to a Romney victory? Of course, I imagine you'd justify the various circumstances by arguing "the economy is improving but it's totally in spite of Obama's policies and Romney would make things even better anyway," or "the economy is poor, people are suffering, and that is bad, but it will lead to a Romney administration which will definitely help America so it's for the greater good of the country that people are unemployed." This is, of course, ignoring the fact that the jobs report will probably show mildish improvement and thus mean nothing substantial to anyone besides partisan hacks and spinmeisters; let's focus on my hypothetical here because I'm genuinely curious.

Seriously, absent the rhetorical bollocks, answer me honestly: would you rather see a massive economic recovery happen right now which helps the country and leads to an Obama victory, or would you rather see millions of Americans remain jobless and vote in Romney? One or the other, no caveats or conditions, which would you rather see? This question goes to all Romney supporters by the way, I've only quoted you specifically because it highlights this doublethink attitude that I've been meaning to ask about for a while now.   

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Rough night?

[J. J.]

Michelle's going a little overboard with the poverty and devastation.

The problem is the disconnect between the rhetoric and the reality.  I think it will all come down to Friday.

What happens on Friday?

A job report that will fundamentally and permanently alter the state of the race, despite none of the previous job reports really affecting it at all.

GOP have to keep hope.........

No, the Democrats have to hope it is good, or the change for the worse.

If it is good, we'll never here you mention it again.

Not hardly.  A good report, at this point, would give Obama a huge boost.  I've been saying that, with a good jobs report and a good speech, Obama could be up 5-6 points.

[J. J.]

How much cognitive dissonance, or doublethink, or whatever you want to call it, does this election require on your part? I mean, I don't doubt you want the American economy to improve, but at the same time you actively support Romney over Obama; these two desires certainly conflict with each other, as an unexpectedly astounding drop in the unemployment rate would be great news for the country, but it would also decimate the Republican party's biggest argument to support Romney over Obama in this election.

Actually I've said that either way I'll be happy with it.  If Obamanomics shows any sign of working, that's great.  If Obananomics isn't working, he's likely to be replaced with someone with an economics plan that will work.

I'm one of the few people here that will at least consider the possibility that unemployment will be lower.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good lord, I've been talking about a 5-6 point boost if they are good.

[J. J.]

They have canceled the stadium, for weather purposes. 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You seem to enjoy playing into the conservative stereotype that liberals love to spend money without bothering to see if it is doing anything.  Surely if it is "bad" that the government no longer shovels money out the door without bothering to see whether it is actually doing good, you'd be able to find some metric that shows that.  All that the one metric you've bothered to present so far is that the switch from AFDC to TANF has reduced the size of the welfare rolls. Since getting people who are able to work off of welfare is in general a good thing, I don't find your argument so far at all persuasive.

The 'doing anything' is paying the bills obviously which you could point to the homeless population alone as one that the safety net doesn't reach as TANF requires children for eligibility and reducing the size of the rolls in spite of no decrease in (originally eligible) demand stands out clearly which is what that chart shows: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3700

AFDC also required children for eligibility, so that wasn't a change in how the law worked.



From 1994 to 2000, the numbers of families in poverty and deep poverty went down even as the caseloads went steeply down.

Since 2000, the numbers of families in both categories have trickled upwards even as the caseload has remained steady, with increases in poverty during periods of economic malaise, which is to be expected.

In all, the data you are touting shows that TANF has worked largely as expected, but has some weakness as a provider of counter-cyclical assistance for the poor during periods of economic weakness.  Whether it is weaker or stronger than AFDC in that regard can't be determined from the data you provided, because it provides no data at all about what the levels of family poverty were under AFDC.

In short, if all I have to go by is the data you gave, then welfare reform was most certainly a success, but that doesn't mean the program can't be improved.

[© tweed]

Chris Matthews apparently said Julian Castro's speech was one of the greatest he's ever heard.

Hahaha, what a legend. Never change, Chris.

I had a dream in which Matthews was morbidly obese and very unattractive.  looked like the fat guy from Austin Powers:

[greenforest32]

AFDC also required children for eligibility, so that wasn't a change in how the law worked.

From 1994 to 2000, the numbers of families in poverty and deep poverty went down even as the caseloads went steeply down.

Since 2000, the numbers of families in both categories have trickled upwards even as the caseload has remained steady, with increases in poverty during periods of economic malaise, which is to be expected.

In all, the data you are touting shows that TANF has worked largely as expected, but has some weakness as a provider of counter-cyclical assistance for the poor during periods of economic weakness.  Whether it is weaker or stronger than AFDC in that regard can't be determined from the data you provided, because it provides no data at all about what the levels of family poverty were under AFDC.

In short, if all I have to go by is the data you gave, then welfare reform was most certainly a success, but that doesn't mean the program can't be improved.

Exactly, by replacing categorical eligibility with a capped, non-inflation adjusted block grant to the states that are seeing their budgets crowded out by the rising cost of healthcare and expanded incarceration, the effectiveness and automatic stabilizer effect has been significantly reduced by design compared to other safety net programs. At least in the following five or so years after there was a relatively good economy but unfortunately that didn't continue and of course direct-hire programs like the WPA aren't happening either.

Just like with AFDC, childless adults were ignored in the revision and when the TANF block grant is seen as a model for other programs like food stamps and Medicaid (which was finally going to cover childless adults via the ACA Medicaid expansion), you can guess what type of 'improvements' we'll see as far as coverage is concerned. The current law will probably be extended and it will shrink even further as inflation and budget cuts eat away at what's left, recession or not.

If the goal is to completely replace everything with a benefit administered via the tax system, e.g. beefed up negative income tax, then at least the party should be talking about it and addressing the access issues associated with that: lack of bank accounts among many of the unemployed/working poor, significant number of people who don't file their return or have an address, cash flow issues of annual vs. monthly payments, etc. We are a long way from a basic income that eliminates (at least basic) poverty, something that ideally I (and I think Snowstalker) want to see the Democrats work towards.

[memphis]

Everybody seems to ignore that "welfare" was de facto replaced by the Child Tax Credit, not by TANF, which very few people use. Now, everybody who has reproduced in the last 18 years, and earns less than $130,000 is on "welfare," but I won't hold my breath waiting for the politicians to point that out to the public.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Plus, the Bush tax cut is actually welfare for the rich.

[Tender Branson]

I have to watch most of this on the weekend. I'm recording the whole convention on my harddisk recorder. I'll only watch Obama live tomorrow.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Well, that was a fun disaster.

[Likely Voter]

Wow, they just amended the platform to put god and Jeruselem as capital of Isreal back into the platform but it didn't sound like they got a 2/3 aye vote, crowd sounded more 50/50...the GOP are going to make hay out of that.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

What an insanely partisan prayer.

The first two events of this night's proceedings have reminded me exactly why I wasn't planning to watch this event. Bleh.

[Peeperkorn]

Why everybody is African American?

[© tweed]

Wow, they just amended the platform to put god and Jeruselem as capital of Isreal back into the platform but it didn't sound like they got a 2/3 aye vote, crowd sounded more 50/50...the GOP are going to make hay out of that.

was that Antonio V.??

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Okay, you guys have seriously got to get better introduction music.

[Likely Voter]

After showing a lot of message discipline, that platform thing was just embarrassing.

[Peeperkorn]

Okay, you guys have seriously got to get better introduction music.

Isn't it the intro of california gurls?