135

Biden Administration to Overhaul Welfare Following ProPublica Reporting (www.propublica.org)

submitted 10 months ago by spaceghoti@lemmy.one to c/politics@lemmy.world

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Through a package of proposed reforms to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, or TANF, the administration plans to shore up the U.S. social safety net. The regulations are intended to ensure that more federal and state welfare dollars make it to low-income families, rather than being spent on other things or not spent at all.

The proposal, drawn up by the federal Administration for Children and Families, is open for public comment until Dec. 1. Once comments are reviewed, officials plan to issue final regulations that could take effect in the months after that, heading into the 2024 election.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] neatchee@lemmy.world 29 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I don't think the administration is making this move predicated on "putting children's safety first". They're doing it because using funds that are earmarked for social safety net purposes (providing more support for families in need) to instead punish those who are in need of those funds - even when that punishment is deserved - does not address the thing the money was intended to resolve and this the request for funds is disingenuous.

We can roleplay this...

Person 1: "Hey, can I borrow $50? My impoverished sister can't afford food for her family this week."

Person 2: "Sure, here you go. Wait, what are you doing?"

Person 1: "Well, I think my neighbor might be neglecting their kids so I spent that $50 on investigating them, just in case."

Person 2: "But I gave you the money to help your sister, not to investigate someone who may or may not have done anything wrong"

You see the problem?

[-] Tedesche@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

I understand the issue being highlighted in the article, and I wasn't commenting on that specifically. I was merely expressing disjunction with their characterization of the CPS system in the sense that they implied there was a hostile motive behind it in a general sense. In my experience, this isn't true.

[-] neatchee@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

As mentioned elsewhere, the article is talking specifically about Arizona, due to investigative reporting on their handling of the funds. I realize that it may not be true everywhere, but do you have a reason to believe Arizona does NOT have the problem called out in the article?

[-] Tedesche@lemmy.world -2 points 10 months ago

I've already said I wasn't talking about the funding issue. At this point, you seem to be willfully misunderstanding me, so I'm not going to continue responding.

[-] neatchee@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

..... But the article is about the funding issue? I'm not willfully misunderstanding anything. I'm asking whether your statement is directly related to the article or just a tangent that is only marginally related.

You seem to have intentionally misrepresented the article's content so that you could say "Not All CPS" which is just not a good look for you

this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023

135 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19016 readers

4352 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News