For those who receive public assistance

[hal2kilo]

Whether it be in the form of food stamps, housing or monetary means should they be put to work to compensate for their "free income". The workers of this country pay taxes and some of that money goes to public assistance programs for those less fortunate. Some may be unable/unwilling to work. So what if we implemented a program where those who got this assistance would be put to work (parks, soup kitchen, construction, fixing roads/bridges or name any job) at the minimum wage until they have recouped the costs they have burdened the taxpayer with. I'm thinking that this would be a joint venture between government and private business to help get Americans back to work and also give them a skill once the economy comes back. Although we would have to have a way to identify those on disability who may be able to assist in some minor way. Those mentally disabled may need to be exempted. I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Awesome home grown indentured servants, managed by private enterprise. What could possibly go wrong with that.

 

[Cerb]

Does anyone have a study or figure on how many jobs would be degraded or lost if social services were to end? A lot of doctors and hospitals rely on these patients to meet margins not to mention the grants and tax breaks they receive from the goverment and city for serving low income/social medicine patients. I'm assuming a lot of doctors and nurses would be obsolete if this happened and this is only the medical industry.

So, the one potential positive benefit, so far, is that it might have a chance of allowing windows to stay whole? Count me in, then! ()

you don't think hard labor provides incentive to not be on welfare? I think that would be one of the only things that get people off of it. Got a job interview? Ask your hard labor supervisor for the afternoon off. Do education online/at night/on weekends.

Well, that depends. Does going off welfare mean being stuck in a cube, trying to look busy all day? IoW, have you watched Office Space, lately? However silly it may be, there is truth, and the incentive will not always go against physical labor. Not only that, but if schooling and/or looking for a job as well, you'd be talking about maybe 20 hours a week, which, once you buffed up, wouldn't be bad at all.

If that were true, we'd have less people on welfare than we do now, and we wouldn't have people abusing things like food stamps. It's a win/win as far as I see. We can finally start rebuilding this country's infrastructure, and at the same time get people off welfare and decrease the deficit.

Let's just ignore the elephant in the room (lack of demand for labor), then, eh?

 

[jackstar7]

Not really, unless your goal is to shut down any opposition to the bags of money that you throw from helicopters without care.

Ummm... okay. You do what you gotta do then...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Awesome home grown indentured servants, managed by private enterprise. What could possibly go wrong with that.

It's wonderful how you wish to keep people and their children free from the evils of work. How kind.

 

[fskimospy]

What did they do in the WPA?

I don't think it's wise to compare the manual labor profile of the average unemployed worker in the 1930's with people today. Not only is our construction work generally far more exacting, mechanized, etc, the average American back then was employed in manual labor work, not so today.

You're going to run into a huge amount of unintended costs with a program like this.

 

[nanette1985]

Yeah lets eliminate SS and medicare and disability and kick people out on the streets. Grandma dont need no stinking SS.

I say this in jest.

However, it is SS and Medicare that are a big drain on our budget. So some cuts may be in order. I think my mom gets something like $1,500 a month for widow benefits and SS per month. Plus she works part time at my sister's Day care. That may sound like a lot of money but Money does not go far now adays.

About 30% of people on SS are not retired.

When I applied for SSDI disability last year they gave me a printout of the total amount I had paid into the system. in my 50-odd working years. I'd reprint that here, but it's lost in one of my files somewhere. If I could have gotten a lump sum, I''d be rich. Since I already paid it, and since it's the way the system is set up I'll gladly take my disability check. It's a heck of a lot less than your mom's 1500 a month.

 

[Modelworks]

One of the biggest problems with the current system is fraud, fix the fraud and the amount paid out by taxpayers would be less than half of what it is now. Things have really changed in how thorough they are with things like welfare and benefits. A good example is SSDI, go back 20 years and to get approved you had to be physically present at a hearing where you directly faced the doctors from SS and answer questions why you could not work. The current system allows anyone with a doctor willing to say the person is disabled to provided reports or documents, a good portion of which are faked and really don't meet disability requirements. I sometimes volunteer for people with disabilities and you have a lot of people that could clearly be working now but because a doctor got the paperwork through when the person was at their absolute worst or possibly stretched things to make it worse than they really are, that person will be paid by taxpayers to not work.

I understand helping people that need help and I am all for it, but when I see people 25 years old, drawing $1k a month , sitting at home , buying expensive clothing and still living off mom and dad, people that talk about using computers to do email, gaming,etc, so they are often more computer literate than their parents and the young adults claim to be disabled, it makes me angry. These groups of people are more common than many realize and will remain on disability for life because the government no longer does the reviews like they used to , they don't go back out and see if that person is still disabled.

The same thing goes for welfare and ebt(food stamps). My mom lives alone and gets her SS, a total of about $650 a month. She doesn't qualify for ebt by NC state rules, yet I see people in their 20's with hundreds of dollars of food with ebt, some even sell their monthly allotment by accepting cash for the card or taking someone else shopping and letting them get what they want and then paying them in the car. If welfare investigated cases like they used to they could stop that, I remember years ago when they made surprise visits on homes, looking to see if the father really was at home, or if the person really was working, they don't do that anymore, not enough funds for social workers they say.

 

[fskimospy]

Modelworks, you are stating that more than 50% of payouts from the current social welfare system are fraudulent? What are you basing this on?

 

[werepossum]

We could steal back the customer service and tech support phone lines back from india.

I like that, but somehow I'm hearing:

"Welcome to tech support. Why the hell did you wake me up? Isn't it enough I have to be here missing my shows? Don't you think I have my own problems, you rich Mac-owning bastard?"

 

[chucky2]

One of the biggest problems with the current system is fraud, snip

Yeppers. Sorry though, all the fraud you see and hear about from reliable sources, that's all anecdotal, it doesn't count. Remember, only studies count, what you know for a fact doesn't.

Chuck

 

[OutHouse]

Yeah, it's one of those things that on an emotional level everyone wants to implement but when you sit down and look at the logistics it falls apart really quickly.

this

 

[OutHouse]

However, it is SS and Medicare that are a big drain on our budget

and is also why we are not a third world country.

 

[OutHouse]

So put another way just counting medicaid the poor get the equivalent of one TARP bailout every year.

i was going to post this. the money spent in social services is a drop in the bucket of how much our country spends on, wars, bail outs, foreigh bribes like a few billion to nearly every country on earth. but people bitch that medicare and social security is a drain? god i hope plan for everything and never ever have to apply for any time of social service.

 

[Modelworks]

Modelworks, you are stating that more than 50% of payouts from the current social welfare system are fraudulent? What are you basing this on?

I am basing it on personal experience, like I said I volunteer a lot and the groups of people I volunteer for are often low or very low income, some because they have to be but more and more by choice. Of the people I encounter on a day , it might be even more than 50% that shouldn't be receiving benefits. It has gotten really bad with the entitlement mindset. Another example I can give, a local food bank hands out food for free, anyone can get it, no paperwork etc, just show up and tell them you need food. I am running into people all the time locally that are going for that food and not because of the need. Someone asked me if I was going, I said no, and they said , why not ? , I replied, because I don't need it, the response, but its free and if you don't get it someone else will. That is the mindset a lot of people on welfare have, it isn't about can I work or do I need food, it is , you owe me food and support, and if the guy across the street gets it then I should too.

Without a system in place to weed out the people that do not need it the government has become just like that food bank, show up and you get what they have, doesn't matter if you need it or not, you deserve it.

 

[Rainsford]

I don't see any real practical benefits of this sort of idea from an economic perspective. The main motivation seems to be more about rejecting the idea of anyone getting "something for nothing". And while there's nothing wrong with that idea, I don't think that's enough of a reason to try to put a massive program like this in place and deal with the consequences several posters have mentioned.

I also think it's worth pointing out that the entire premise of this thread seems to be based on the idea that receiving government assistance is equivalent to sitting on your ass all day not doing anything. Nobody is out of work temporarily and looking hard for a new job or trying to get training for a new one or any of that. This idea seems particularly hard to implement with people like that, who may not fit into the "oppressed taxpayer" philosophy but still exist.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't think it's wise to compare the manual labor profile of the average unemployed worker in the 1930's with people today. Not only is our construction work generally far more exacting, mechanized, etc, the average American back then was employed in manual labor work, not so today.

You're going to run into a huge amount of unintended costs with a program like this.

It's insignificant compared to the task some suggest be undertaken. Besides, I don't know about where you live but there are many manual tasks to be performed. Start somewhere. Clean a street, fill a pothole. Anything.

Remember I'm not saying thats the end. Education and long term economic growth policies must come about. It's either that or more generations of dependents.

 

[nanette1985]

One of the biggest problems with the current system is fraud, fix the fraud and the amount paid out by taxpayers would be less than half of what it is now. Things have really changed in how thorough they are with things like welfare and benefits. A good example is SSDI, go back 20 years and to get approved you had to be physically present at a hearing where you directly faced the doctors from SS and answer questions why you could not work. The current system allows anyone with a doctor willing to say the person is disabled to provided reports or documents, a good portion of which are faked and really don't meet disability requirements. I sometimes volunteer for people with disabilities and you have a lot of people that could clearly be working now but because a doctor got the paperwork through when the person was at their absolute worst or possibly stretched things to make it worse than they really are, that person will be paid by taxpayers to not work.

I recently went through the SSDI process and I most certainly had to have a hearing with doctors from SS.

 

[1prophet]

Whether it be in the form of food stamps, housing or monetary means should they be put to work to compensate for their "free income". The workers of this country pay taxes and some of that money goes to public assistance programs for those less fortunate. Some may be unable/unwilling to work. So what if we implemented a program where those who got this assistance would be put to work (parks, soup kitchen, construction, fixing roads/bridges or name any job) at the minimum wage until they have recouped the costs they have burdened the taxpayer with. I'm thinking that this would be a joint venture between government and private business to help get Americans back to work and also give them a skill once the economy comes back. Although we would have to have a way to identify those on disability who may be able to assist in some minor way. Those mentally disabled may need to be exempted. I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Been there done that, too bad so many of todays liberals as well as some conservatives would oppose anything like it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/ccc/player/

 

[Jhhnn]

Can we just cut to the superior dance part of the skit, please?

 

[Bowfinger]

Awesome home grown indentured servants, managed by private enterprise. What could possibly go wrong with that.

It's wonderful how you wish to keep people and their children free from the evils of work. How kind.

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.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Listen. I can't see my way to quote and answer just one poster here, and the thread is now on its third page.

I suggest, based on imperfect memory and impressions as I was reviewing federal budgets and news, to look at the amounts budgeted for basic welfare programs and the federal level and state level. I thought I saw where the public assistance budget at the federal level was a drop in the bucket as compared to other agencies and programs. The reason I throw this out, is that there are myths about government spending, as if government has just been collecting taxes and blowing money all over the place to undeserving people.

After 1973, Nixon had HEW implement a quality-control program pertaining to welfare subsidies to states. They'd take statistical samples of a state's active caseload, and send reviewers or auditors to investigate that the requirements were being met, the amounts were correct, and there was no fraudulent activity -- "welfare cheating." Quarterly grant amounts to the states were reduced or increased based in the sample results.

Then there was the Work Incentive Program or WIN -- a welfare for work program that was attached to AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children -- they probably call it something else now.) There was welfare reform after welfare reform -- the last one of substance occurring under Clinton.

Nothing is new about what people here are saying or proposing. It has been done and is being done in various states with federal subsidies, and for a long time.

There are plenty of other freeloaders. Defense contracting has always been a big racket. Before Barbara Boxer's $2,000 coffee-machine discovery in a military expenditures report, there was a company here in my home town that made transformers to a certain specification. The Air Force sent out requests for proposals seeking similar transformers with the same basic specifications, but tighter tolerances under "MIL_spec." The company's president announced in a meeting that he saw a way to make some money. His company was selling the regular transformers for $2.50 each commercially. They made minor adjustments in production and testing, and offered them to the Air Force for $75 each.

So you really, really need to ask why a defense budget in 2000 was still just so many billions short of the full Cold War level, then jumped to $850 billion by 2008 and really was more like $1.2 trillion for that year -- adding in Homeland Security spending. OF course-- the two wars -- but you'd think the current spending level in 2000 would've covered Afghanistan. The second war is argued to have been a wasteful adventure. But $250 billion to $1.2 trillion a year?

WE'd better look for some $75 transformers, $2,000 coffee-makers, and exotic projects that only lead to international arms-races.

 

[Nebor]

If you tried to make people work for their welfare, they'd just tie the whole system up in the courts for years. We've allowed a welfare class to develop, and they have no desire to work, learn or be productive (other than reproductive.) There is literally nothing to be done about the situation under our current form of government & constitution.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Whether it be in the form of food stamps, housing or monetary means should they be put to work to compensate for their "free income". The workers of this country pay taxes and some of that money goes to public assistance programs for those less fortunate. Some may be unable/unwilling to work. So what if we implemented a program where those who got this assistance would be put to work (parks, soup kitchen, construction, fixing roads/bridges or name any job) at the minimum wage until they have recouped the costs they have burdened the taxpayer with. I'm thinking that this would be a joint venture between government and private business to help get Americans back to work and also give them a skill once the economy comes back. Although we would have to have a way to identify those on disability who may be able to assist in some minor way. Those mentally disabled may need to be exempted. I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

I'd agree with this program. In addition to getting things done that need to be done (either due to lack of funding or manpower), it would hopefully give these people marketable skills.

 

[sportage]

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.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

What about someone works for 20-30 years and gets laid off/loses job for a year or two and needs to get food stamps to get by... they should be pay it back in labor? How do you discern who is unable/unwilling? Don't they pay these same exact taxes all the time they were working?

How do they discern who is unable to work now? If, for the sake of this argument, we assume that the current system for determining disability is sound (if you don't agree, fine, but that is another thread), I'd say that those who aren't deemed as disabled but are collecting benefits are either unemployed or underemployed. We'll tackle the underemployed ones a little later, but let's focus on the unemployed.

For those who were working and were laid off, they're entitled to unemployment for what -- is it still at 99 weeks? Once unemployment runs out, what is wrong with someone pitching in to clean up parks, paint underpasses, working in soup lines, etc. to earn their assistance?

The underemployed segment is harder to tackle. If they're working a job and still have to collect food stamps, etc. to make ends meet, that is tragic and I don't think those people should be forced to work a second job to pay for their benefits. That's a tough situation and I'm not sure how to handle it to be honest, but perhaps we should look at their employers?

Dont ask to many hard questions umbrella, that would require a person to think this through, and consider all its consequences, before trotting this out for the millionth time.

There is no need to be condescending. This topic is a good discussion. What I fear happens in many of these debates is that obstacles are encountered and people just throw up their hands and say "the problem is too tough!" These are just excuses IMO. There are lots of things to consider and logistics to be worked out, but I see it as something worth investigating to see if the benefits outweigh the costs. It may very well be that it isn't worth doing, but has an actual study ever been performed?

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.

I think the practical problem would be you would be spending so much money to evaluate who has to work and at what job that you would create a system that cost more. Don't get me wrong, I think that public assistance should be a temporary thing with a "back to work" program but I just think that it would probably cost significantly more money initially. I would hope that after 10 or 15 years the program would begin to save money but our politicians just cant work in that kind of time frame.

That's my fear as well, but I think it is worth investigating.