California mulls Schwarzenegger's proposal to end welfare

[Starbuck1975]

My proposal is to have a lottery to end Arnold. Sell raffle tickets (to the poor) for $5 a piece, the winner gets to off Arnold on TV. California profits.

Why limit it to Arnold...lets throw in some of the Sacramento elite, special interest lobbyists, union leaders and all of these wealthy elite with too much time and money on their hands who like to sponsor some of these ridiculous propositions...because collectively they are destroying California.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: SammyJr
If the religious one where concerned about that issue, they'd have a families room and segregate single men and women. They have the space. Instead, they're pushing their morality.

Yes, because Christian ethics demands husbands and wives not sleep together. :roll:

Do you ever think before posting or do you just bang your bicycle helmeted head on the keyboard and this is what pops up?

Don't ask me to explain their logic. I'm not the one who believes in spooks and spirits.

:laugh:

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
It makes sense on paper. That's the problem. What if people don't want to learn to fish? Do we then cut them off from their food so they can then murder us?

If an able bodied person refuses to take care of themselves even after given the tools to do so, then yes. Cut them off. Starve them to death. They're useless.

I'm with you on this but we both know that will never happen. If people don't want to work it will be because society did something to make them that way therefore we as society must bear that burden.

Nonsense. I grew up in the inner city. I don't have to speculate, I know how it works.

Across the street from my house there was a woman who was collecting three welfare checks a month under different names. Her daughters got checks. Her husband was a sea cook in the merchant marine who made more money than anyone on the block. Of course they didn't report it.

So how is it societies fault that the family collected seven welfare checks plus all other benefits that brings to a family which at the time was well off?

These people would cry a bucket when they had too and then laugh at the fools paying them for doing nothing. They played the system because THEY decided to steal that which they did not need.

As far as people resorting to killing if they are forced to work, I won't be blackmailed by fear. Instead they will learn to fear the consequences of their actions in short order.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
It makes sense on paper. That's the problem. What if people don't want to learn to fish? Do we then cut them off from their food so they can then murder us?

If an able bodied person refuses to take care of themselves even after given the tools to do so, then yes. Cut them off. Starve them to death. They're useless.

I'm with you on this but we both know that will never happen. If people don't want to work it will be because society did something to make them that way therefore we as society must bear that burden.

Nonsense. I grew up in the inner city. I don't have to speculate, I know how it works.

Across the street from my house there was a woman who was collecting three welfare checks a month under different names. Her daughters got checks. Her husband was a sea cook in the merchant marine who made more money than anyone on the block. Of course they didn't report it.

So how is it societies fault that the family collected seven welfare checks plus all other benefits that brings to a family which at the time was well off?

These people would cry a bucket when they had too and then laugh at the fools paying them for doing nothing. They played the system because THEY decided to steal that which they did not need.

As far as people resorting to killing if they are forced to work, I won't be blackmailed by fear. Instead they will learn to fear the consequences of their actions in short order.

You live in reality my friend. Those of us who grew up in or around the poorer side of life understand this all too well. Good luck explaining it to a utopian idealist however.

 

[dyna]

When I used to checkout groceries, it opened my eyes to the abuse of the system. 95% of the food stamp users would purchase items not based on value. They would typically buy the most expensive meats, milk, fruit juices etc... Then the next customer who paid cash would purchase on value.

I also saw many times where they would want to make many purchases of a small item to get the change. Buying 50 hersey bars on separate orders, so they could get the cash, since then I believe its been changed to electronic payment, eliminating that loophole. The mechanism of the payment may have changed to electronic but the person is still going to try to find ways to cheat the system.

The system that does work is WIC. This is the system that all welfare recipients should be on, the food stamp is too flexible and easy to cheat.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Patranus
Welfare does NOT encourage work.

In many cases work actually imposes a 100% tax on work. If you can get $3,000/month on welfare or get a entry level job paying minimum wage - $1,400/month - that is actually a 200% tax.

$36K/year on welfare? Got a link?

Not sure about the $36K/year figure myself... but I know if you can keep pumping out the kids... you may get pretty close to that.


Text

If you had enough kids to get $3K/month of welfare, you would not make it on $1400/month. Kids would probably end up in foster care and cost state much more than $3K/month to support.

 

[n yusef]

I don't think that the existence of Welfare fraud is a great argument against the concept of Welfare. Nor do I think that the Ponzi scheme is a great argument against the hedge fund. Or that the possibility of counterfeits are a great argument against paper currency. I don't think that thieves are a great argument against private property, and I don't know anyone who does. The "Welfare Queen" is no different from Bernie Madoff, a counterfeiter, or any other thief. She is a criminal, and we have laws to deal with criminals. There are legitimate arguments against all of these systems and concepts, and we should debate them instead.

If the prevalence of "Welfare Queens" is statistically, not just anecdotally, proven, then we ought to improve the regulation of the Welfare system, not gut it.

Regarding Welfare to Work programs: I think that they are good and important, but they must be accompanied by childcare and after-school programs. Most of the recipients of Welfare are single mothers, and while it is important that they work, we must acknowledge and mitigate the harm that this places on their children.