For those who receive public assistance

[nehalem256]

Until congress agrees to first cut their own perks and life pensions, government healthcare, etc, etc, I wouldn't worry about people collecting food stamps and assistance. All the time people harp about those collecting welfare/assistance. Not once has anyone brought up the same outrage with the congressional perks. Plus, add in term limits for those career politicians.
You have Senator Grassley from iOwa, for one example of many, that has been serving since he was 12 years old (something like that). If congress can vote to protect their own, not to mention those generous pay hikes, those on assistance should be allowed to do no less.
Sure, someone collecting food stamps can be called the villain while your typical Senator becomes a millionaire serving a lifetime in government service.
The very government they pretend to hate so much, makes them very very wealthy.
First fix congress, then go after food stamp recipients.

So he served 3 terms as a senator before he was constitutionally allowed to?

Congressman should be paid a decent salary and benefits. Most people do not complain because they understand there is a difference between being a US Senator and being a single mother with 3 kids by different men.

 

[JockoJohnson]

Smaller government isn't my goal, but I know it is the goal of some here. Seemed relevant to the discussion.

Smarter gov't != smaller gov't.

I think most people want a smarter gov't if we can't have a smaller gov't.

Each situation should be looked at. If truly handicapped, no work. If they are able to work, force them to clean up streets if in the city...pick berries if in the country. Just do something.

 

[Veliko]

So he served 3 terms as a senator before he was constitutionally allowed to?

Congressman should be paid a decent salary and benefits. Most people do not complain because they understand there is a difference between being a US Senator and being a single mother with 3 kids by different men.

If a woman is 'constitutionally allowed' to receive whatever benefits she is getting, what is the problem?

 

[nehalem256]

If a woman is 'constitutionally allowed' to receive whatever benefits she is getting, what is the problem?

Congressman are being paid for doing a job. You do realize that all not paying congressman will do is ensure that only the rich can be congressman? Even more so than today.

The woman is being paid for being a slut and being unable to please her man(or men).

See the difference. Stop trying to force me to support your liberal values.

 

[OutHouse]

Congressman should be paid a decent salary and benefits

right now their pay and perks are far from decent they are obscene. they are elected officials serving the people. that does not mean it should be a golden ticket to become wealthy like it is now. if one wants to become rich do it in the private sector not off the people.

 

[nehalem256]

right now their pay and perks are far from decent they are obscene. they are elected officials serving the people. that does not mean it should be a golden ticket to become wealthy like it is now.

So they make $163,000 a year. When you consider the cost of living in Washington DC and the need for 2 residences I hardly think that is obscene.

 

[Veliko]

Congressman are being paid for doing a job. You do realize that all not paying congressman will do is ensure that only the rich can be congressman? Even more so than today.

Well, your initial response suggests you were only concerned with the legal side of things, rather than the merit one way or another.

The woman is being paid for being a slut and being unable to please her man(or men).

Yay for anger and bitterness. How big is that chip on your shoulder?

See the difference. Stop trying to force me to support your liberal values.

The depths of some people's paranoid delusions know no bounds.

 

[child of wonder]

I'd like it if menial government jobs (janitors, landscaping, etc.) were filled with people on government assistance.

Also, those on government assistance should be required to take birth control so long as they're receiving benefits.

 

[OutHouse]

So they make $163,000 a year. When you consider the cost of living in Washington DC and the need for 2 residences I hardly think that is obscene.

that is still too much for a public servent. and you forgot all the PERKS you have been blabbering about.

add those in then come back.

yes its obscene

I dont give a fuck about the cost of living in DC. they chose to become a politician deal with it.

 

[nehalem256]

that is still too much for a public servent. and you forgot all the PERKS you have been blabbering about.

add those in then come back.

yes its obscene

I dont give a fuck about the cost of living in DC. they chose to become a politician deal with it.

So in other words you want to ensure that only the 1% can become Congressman. Good job.

 

[Ninjahedge]

ICF:

On the other hand, with the government running the program, expenses would spiral out of control and it would end up being far more costly than the benefits gained, so scratch that idea.

And that is the interesting thing.

Somehow, projects like DOT or other large scale items get blown out of the water, but things like health care and insurance for government employees (the military being a prime example) are SIGNIFICANTLY more efficient than the private sector (mostly from the insurance fees, but partially from the doctors fees as well).

The problem is, generally, decisions by closed committee. They take forever and end up going to someone's nephew. Maybe what we need is to start running a few more programs using the military substructure we already have.


Maybe.

 

[Ninjahedge]

right now their pay and perks are far from decent they are obscene. they are elected officials serving the people. that does not mean it should be a golden ticket to become wealthy like it is now. if one wants to become rich do it in the private sector not off the people.

How about a new rule making the pay and benefits forfeit depending o the vested worth of the elected official?

Maybe like a "Bloomberg's Law" thing where if a congressman is worth more than $XM or earns, on their own financial statement, more than a certain amount, that they get paid $1 and have to pay for their own health care/etc (as well as getting NO PENSION)?

This is a small drop in the bucket, but if every congressional salary forfeit means ~30 people fed......

 

[nehalem256]

How about a new rule making the pay and benefits forfeit depending o the vested worth of the elected official?

Maybe like a "Bloomberg's Law" thing where if a congressman is worth more than $XM or earns, on their own financial statement, more than a certain amount, that they get paid $1 and have to pay for their own health care/etc (as well as getting NO PENSION)?

This is a small drop in the bucket, but if every congressional salary forfeit means ~30 people fed......

So now you are opposing the concept of equal pay for equal work?

 

[NoStateofMind]

My purpose with this topic is to have the discussion. The idea's I presented are not totally original and certainly not perfect. I brought it up here to exchange that idea with others so they can in turn point out weaknesses and hopefully provide solutions. I think most of us can agree that the current public assistance programs beget people feeling entitled to hand outs and I am of the mind that if they are required to give back there will be less of it.

So to those who dismiss this outright without offering an idea of your own essentially continues the political polarization. Therefore adding noise to the topic. However if you can add to or critique this topic in a constructive manner a better solution than we currently have may be discovered.

One of the statistics I would like to see is what is the percentage of people who find jobs within a month/2 months of their unemployment benefit expiration? I'm willing to bet the percentage of people finding a job after unemployment benefits expire are far higher than those who still have benefits to spare and find employment.


I would like to thank those who did participate in a constructive manner and I would say thats most of you.

 

[NoStateofMind]

To the point that there are bigger fish to fry I would agree. How about making a thread that states your solution and ask for input?

 

[werepossum]

That's not a reasoned response. His point is quite valid. I personally like the idea of workfare. We need a way to ensure people feel motivated to be productive contributors to society. As it stands today, it is too easy for too many people to sit back in comfort and accept taxpayer handouts.

That said, I fully recognize that workfare is not easy for many reasons, some of which have already been covered here. Hal2kilo raises another good one. Just as we need people motivated to get off welfare, we need to be sure we don't create a situation where government or private employers are motivated to keep people on workfare. It would be too easy to create a virtual prison, where people doing workfare are trapped and can never get out because someone finds a lot of value in a cheap, conscripted workforce.

In short, it's a good idea but the problems are real and need to be considered carefully. It is worth doing, however. There are many things currently left undone that the unemployed could help with.

Good points. I too like the idea of workfare - there's a lot of value in just getting welfare people up every morning - but since we're running record deficits this probably isn't a time to implement such a program. Also, I don't know that we could find much of anything for them to do beyond picking up litter without possibly knocking out paid work. I'm fine with putting them to work picking up litter though.

Regarding SSDI, I've known many people who have applied for it and only two received it. Oddly enough they were the two who least needed it, both supposedly for bad backs. It's definitely not easy to get it, but it seems to me to matter most if you have a lawyer who is savvy in gaming the system.

 

[OutHouse]

So in other words you want to ensure that only the 1% can become Congressman. Good job.

congressmen are the 1% so whats your point again? oh they need to paid a lot of money to BE a congressman in the expensive city of DC. ok gotcha...

funny the postal worker delivering the mail to the rich congressmans office and house doesn't get paid a "decent" salary, but can live in DC.

 

[OutHouse]

So now you are opposing the concept of equal pay for equal work?

equal work? ok compared to who? should the president be compared to the gov of wyoming? or the speaker of the house compared to umm i dunno who to compare him to.

seriously why are you such a defender of your rich politicians pay?

 

[nehalem256]

congressmen are the 1% so whats your point again? oh they need to paid a lot of money to BE a congressman in the expensive city of DC. ok gotcha...

funny the postal worker delivering the mail to the rich congressmans office and house doesn't get paid a "decent" salary, but can live in DC.

And you are ensuring that in the future all Congressmen will be from the 1%.

equal work? ok compared to who? should the president be compared to the gov of wyoming? or the speaker of the house compared to umm i dunno who to compare him to.

seriously why are you such a defender of your rich politicians pay?

Equal compared to other US Congressman. It was proposed that some congressmen be paid $1 and others $163,000. This is unequal.

Because I do not see their pay as unreasonable.

 

[Icepick]

Hard questions need to be asked. Only a fool supports the status quo.

The answer to the cost is "more" per unit time. The end result is that people have skills and education while doing useful work. The value of their efforts need to be taken into account. The old WPA did a hell of a lot, and it might have been cheaper to send them a check in the short term. In the long term? A lifestyle of dependency isn't free, although it seems that is your favored approach.

I can tell you this much- no economy is good enough that they will hire people who have no skills and refuse to participate in it. Until there is BOTH opportunity AND motivation to work things will remain as they are.

Want specifics?
Require work and education. Provide day care. Yes it's not cheap.

Pay is based on performance. Screw off and you don't get what you think you deserve. Get good grades and do a good job you get more. Make it cashless. We have a system in place where one cannot buy OTC medications with few exceptions if using a health savings card. Expand that program. Yeah it costs more to set up. Beats writing checks for thousands to buy HDTVs like we did in NY. NYC can limit sodas? Hell. Then we can certainly limit tax money spent on poor food. It's supposed to be assistance, not a lifestyle choice.

At the same time change tariff and trade policies. Make investing in the required infrastructure economically favorable. Give tax incentives for policies which encourage long term domestic jobs. Government should not be looking at how to punish and squeeze. It needs to be a facilitator of change working with industry, not make hay out of the situation.

The end result is that we get people off of welfare and put them and others to work. That means the program can default to back to those who really need it for temporary or disability use. That costs less in the long run.

A better society, less ignorance, greater opportunity. Of course you might like things as they are. I don't.

Excellent post. These are the right ideas to begin fixing a complex problem.

 

[CitizenKain]

The woman is being paid for being a slut and being unable to please her man(or men).

Its neat seeing you shit up every thread you post in with this garbage.

 

[fskimospy]

Its neat seeing you shit up every thread you post in with this garbage.

How is it that he can always find a way to turn every thread back to his hatred of women? This fixation is not healthy.

 

[nehalem256]

How is it that he can always find a way to turn every thread back to his hatred of women? This fixation is not healthy.

What does a thread about public assistance have to do with women? :hmm:

 

[davmat787]

B) what about those with disablity's? field work is out. what then?


I think this is a good idea. just needs a lot of work.

Disability is a completely differently program, unfortunately I know all too well. However, I am proud to say that the vast majority of my disability comes from a private insurance policy (Microsoft benefits FTW). The small portion that does not I was legally binded to apply for, otherwise I would be completely supported via my private policy.

And believe me, I would give anything to be back at MSFT. I lived in Redmond just as Microsoft broke ground on building 1 - 4. It still is hard to drive by there I miss it so damn much. Based on the division I worked in before, and the reorgs since then, there is a damn good chance I would be working in one of the Surface groups. :'(

 

[Ninjahedge]

congressmen are the 1% so whats your point again? oh they need to paid a lot of money to BE a congressman in the expensive city of DC. ok gotcha...

funny the postal worker delivering the mail to the rich congressmans office and house doesn't get paid a "decent" salary, but can live in DC.

Not really, but I get your point... (A friend of mine lived in the DC "area" for a while. There are places to live in that are cheaper than others, but I would guess DC proper is rather expensive).

But to support your other point, it would be interesting to see how many politicians in the House and Senate earn less than $250K/year (combined) and/or have a net worth of over $10M (including real estate).