If you live off govt handouts, we should make the milk as sour as possible

[fskimospy]

if there's one thing that'll make it easier for a person who's down on their luck to find a new job, it's having to work 8 hours/week in community service and having their phone confiscated.

Better confiscate their dog too. Usually shelters only hold animals for a few weeks before euthanizing them. Nothing like that ticking clock to motivate someone to get a job.

 

[thraashman]

And popping out 3 bastard kids with 3 baby daddies(2 of whom are in prison) isn't exactly what I would call "down on your luck".

And this is the problem with people like nehalem. This is the image in his head of people who have to go on any form of government assistance.

 

[Rakehellion]

And that is where I take issue. Because in many or most cases of corporate welfare that isn't true. The corporation is just sending a smaller check to the government.

So if someone's on welfare, but they pay $40 for a driver's license, they're in the clear. They're still getting free money, but they paid some back. Good show!

 

[senseamp]

Earned Income Tax credit? You mean the program that GOP supported to encourage people on welfare to go to work? You want to make work as sour as possible?

 

[nehalem256]

Better confiscate their dog too.

They should have to eat the dog first. Why should people with perfectly eatable livestock be able to get food stamps?

And this is the problem with people like nehalem. This is the image in his head of people who have to go on any form of government assistance.

Its actually how NPR portrays them...

Take the case of 29-year-old Jennifer Stepp, who lives in Reading, Pa. Like 14 million other people in the U.S. who live in families headed by single mothers, she's poor. And she faces incredible odds.

Stepp has three children by three different fathers. The father of her eldest child, 10-year-old Isaiah, is serving 30 years in federal prison for armed robbery.

"He's met my son one time, when he was a baby. And he decided that he didn't want him," she says.

Stepp's middle child, 8-year-old Shyanne, usually sees her father every other weekend. But the father of her younger son is also in prison. Stepp says he's been behind bars for selling cocaine since she was pregnant. He has never met 1-year-old Makai.

http://www.npr.org/2012/07/11/155103593/to-beat-odds-poor-single-moms-need-wide-safety-net

Is npr a radical right wing news source now.

 

[BUnit1701]

Since when to conservatives care about anywhere else in the world?

Bottom line, you're getting free money from the government.

Ahh, gotta love liberal logic. Any dollar they choose not to take in taxes is instead counted as 'being given by the government'. Exposing their view that EVERYTHING belongs to the government in the first place.

 

[Oldgamer]

why isn't this done?

why aren't a ton of restrictions placed on people on welfare/food stamps and/or getting the Earned Income Credit?

ie:
no cable, no pets, no cell phones
are cigarettes barred from the food stamp debit cards?
if you live in govt housing, you must do 8hrs community service around your housing unit every week.
etc

if you can afford them, then you don't need govt handouts

Wow, you have lost it. Seriously, as I have always said before, just how poor do you want the poor and unemployed to be. Why penalize these people more for something that is beyond their control? Your title on the OP should really say "we should punish the poor as much as possible if they take handouts".

I am really tired of people like you who think poor people, like our elderly, vets, and disabled, unemployed should be "punished" and treated like lepers.

I think even if your unfortunate enough to have to take government welfare, or live on social security or disability, no one has the right to treat you in the fashion your condoning. No one wants to live this way.

In addition, a poor person's life is hard enough as it is, I wouldn't begrudge them a pet for comfort, or and or a cell phone to keep in touch with people, loved ones, or make doctor appointments, or even utilize to try and get a job if they are able.

I don't care if the poor want to enjoy a vice or two, so long as it isn't illegal and they are able to afford it.

People like the OP really need to stop with the "punishment" and "stigmatization" of our poor and needy.

Get off it already.. seriously.

 

[Cozarkian]

if you live in govt housing, you must do 8hrs

Let's imagine we have a single mother who got knocked up by two or three different dead beat dads, none of whom pay child support because they are either unemployed, in jail, or dirtbags who hide from the law. She's not exactly a great decision-maker and lacks education and job skills, so she won't be able to find anything more than a minimum wage job.

This person doesn't have the time to work 8 hours of community service, and if she did (let's say she doesn't work at all) she couldn't afford the daycare costs.

Ultimately, the question becomes, are you willing to let her children die because their parents make bad decisions? Alternatively, do you want to pay enormous legal fees to take custody away from her and put her children in the costly foster care system? As a final alternative, would you prefer to spend tons of money to investigate each claim on a case-by-case basis so we can determine when a person actually can't do the community service hours, including follow-up investigations to determine whether circumstances change (maybe a dad gets out of prison, gets a job, and starts ponying up support for daycare), just so we can get some labor out of someone who may not be a very productive worker anyway?

It's a nice thought to closely scrutinize how government welfare-system payments are utilized, but it really isn't very practical.

 

[nehalem256]

So if someone's on welfare, but they pay $40 for a driver's license, they're in the clear. They're still getting free money, but they paid some back. Good show!

And they received a DL for said $40 fee.

Hey I have an idea maybe instead of saying that I buy things from Target. I should instead saying I am providing them with charity!

 

[nehalem256]

Ahh, gotta love liberal logic. Any dollar they choose not to take in taxes is instead counted as 'being given by the government'. Exposing their view that EVERYTHING belongs to the government in the first place.

As I said. Just raise the marginal corporate tax rate to 100%. Then all profits would welfare!

 

[Rakehellion]

They should have to eat the dog first. Why should people with perfectly eatable livestock be able to get food stamps?

I'm pretty sure they have laws against that now.

Its actually how NPR portrays them...

http://www.npr.org/2012/07/11/155103593/to-beat-odds-poor-single-moms-need-wide-safety-net

Is npr a radical right wing news source now.

"Them" meaning "she."

You're certainly not doing much to help the image of radical right-wingnuts!

 

[Jhhnn]

They shouldn't be allowed to buy gift baskets with taxpayer money.

When confronted with the absurdity of your position, merely re-assert it as if that makes some difference.

 

[fskimospy]

Ahh, gotta love liberal logic. Any dollar they choose not to take in taxes is instead counted as 'being given by the government'. Exposing their view that EVERYTHING belongs to the government in the first place.

Interesting! So if we set the tax rate to a flat 25% for everyone and then decide you get to pay nothing despite being able to utilize all the same services you really didn't get any benefit after all.

Who knew?? Conservative logic is truly mind boggling.

 

[BUnit1701]

Interesting! So if we set the tax rate to a flat 25% for everyone and then decide you get to pay nothing despite being able to utilize all the same services you really didn't get any benefit after all.

Who knew?? Conservative logic is truly mind boggling.

Not as mind boggling as somehow granting me a 0% tax rate while everyone else is paying 25%...

 

[fskimospy]

Not as mind boggling as somehow granting me a 0% tax rate while everyone else is paying 25%...

Huh? I was illustrating the silliness of the logic that says having certain groups pay less in taxes than everyone else for the same services isn't welfare.

 

[IGBT]

in order for liberal Big.Gov to grow..it needs to grow dependency. It's all part of the collective mental illness called liberalism.

 

[Rakehellion]

And they received a DL for said $40 fee.

Hey I have an idea maybe instead of saying that I buy things from Target. I should instead saying I am providing them with charity!

And the corporations get services in exchange for their tax dollars too.

 

[1prophet]

why isn't this done?

why aren't a ton of restrictions placed on people on welfare/food stamps and/or getting the Earned Income Credit?

ie:
no cable, no pets, no cell phones
are cigarettes barred from the food stamp debit cards?
if you live in govt housing, you must do 8hrs community service around your housing unit every week.
etc

if you can afford them, then you don't need govt handouts

Why isn't this done,:whiste:

Because big businesses that buy off politicians benefit from it, handsomely.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...zIG4Bg&usg=AFQjCNFEFI5K8ZrQqLKnF8krXxd7ti_CPQ

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/12/companies-benefit-from-food-stamps_n_1878457.html

Profits from Poverty: How Food Stamps Benefit Corporations

Three major corporations have cornered the market for providing services to the needy and destitute through the federal food stamp program — now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
Those three companies are — J.P. Morgan EFS, Affiliated Computer Services, and eFunds.


That’s according to a report released last week by the Governmental Accountability Institute.


The title of the report — Profits from Poverty: How Food Stamps Benefit Corporations.


The report quotes an executive from JP Morgan, the largest food stamp industry player, as saying that the business of food stamps “is a very important business to JP Morgan. It’s an important business in terms of its size and scale . . .Right now volumes have gone through the roof in the past couple of years or so. The good news from JP Morgan’s perspective is the infrastructure that we built has been able to cope with that increase in volume.”


Originally conceived as a means to prop up sagging crop prices to support American farmers, the Food Stamp Program, now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, has exploded into a welfare program that costs taxpayers a record $75.67 billion in 2011, the group reported.
Lax security by electronic benefit transfer (EBT) processors and states invites food stamp fraud, often through social media, the report found.
“There are understaffed fraud investigation units at both the federal and state level,” the group reported. “For example, Florida has just 63 staff positions to police approximately 3 million EBT users statewide.


These investigators not only handle TANF and SNAP eligibility fraud, but also EBT trafficking, Social Security Disability and Medicaid eligibility fraud, Emergency Financial Assistance for Housing, and Low Income Energy assistance, among many others.”


The Government Accountability Institute’s Peter Schweizer went on Fox News earlier this month to release his findings.


“Welfare in America is supposed to be a safety net for those in need, but instead, it’s become an insider’s game of power and profit,” Schweizer said.
“Tonight, you’re going to learn that food stamps are not just a program.



It’s an industry. It begins here at the U.S. Department of Agriculture with the tentacles of this industry extend to Wall Street and Madison Avenue and includes some of the largest corporations in America. It’s an industry that has lobbyists, advertisers, and promotions and an increasing market share.”


“It started as a way to get farm fresh produce onto the tables of the hungry and give a boost to struggling farmers along the way. But the program has grown enormously. Big corporations and their lobbyists spend millions to try to get their hands on a piece of this $75 billion pie.”


“Food stamps have become big business in America. They were originally intended for things like cheese, eggs, meat and vegetables. But thanks to the aggressive lobbying of large corporations, they can be used for everything from soft drinks to in some cases, fast food.”


“Chains like Pizza Hut and Taco Bell have fought with mixed results to get a cut of the money with only some states green lighting the use in certain locations. At the same time, corporations like Coca-Cola and Kraft Foods have successfully lobbied against bills that would block soda and junk food from being food stamp eligible.”


“With the program experiencing explosive growth, it shows no signs of slowing down because the politicians argue that the bigger the program gets, the better it is for America.”


Then, guest host Sean Hannity brought on a lobbyist for the soda industry — Karen Hanretty, vice president of public affairs for the American Beverage Association.


The question on the table — should liquid candy — aka sugary soft drinks — be part of the food stamp program.


Hanretty: You know, this notion that they are spending millions of dollars lobbying in order to get their hands on this money, which is just simply not the case because the USDA has never had a list of excluded foods. They’ve never had a list of good foods versus bad foods, healthy foods versus unhealthy foods.


That’s the way we should want it. As a conservative, you do not want the federal government getting in the business of saying you’re on the good list. You’re on the bad list. That’s a very slippery slope to go down.


Schweizer: Karen, with all due respect, the program was set up initially to provide basic nutritional needs. So it was cheese and it was meat –


Hanretty: In the 30s, right.


Schweizer: It was originally set up. What you had is the expansion of it. So now you have snack foods and soft drinks –


Hanretty: You had that for decades. You had that — in the ’60s they passed the stamp act in 1964.


Schweizer: Right. How did that act get implemented? It didn’t get implemented because you had food stamp recipients coming to Washington asking for it. It happened because industries saw and recognized that government money puts money on the table and they were looking to make that money. I have no problem –


Hanretty: Actually, that’s not entirely accurate either because if you look at the congressional record in 1977, Congress — there has been a lot of debate. How do you insure that your taxpayer dollars are going toward only — I think what commonly would be referred to as healthy foods, right? In 1977, Congress said listen, trying to sort through the good versus the bad is a cure worse than –


Schweizer: That’s not what we’re talking about. We’re not talking about sorting between good and bad.


Hanretty: You would have to sort between good and bad. You have over 300,000 food products that government bureaucrats will have to go through.


Schweizer concludes by saying that “the problem is the more our poverty was fought and poverty won.”


“The United States since the 1960s has spent $15 trillion, that’s trillion with a “T” on antipoverty programs. That’s about the same size as the U.S. national debt,” Schweizer said.


“While the poverty rate in the 1960s was around 15 percent, it remains stubbornly there to this day. So if these programs have not helped people that are in need, who has benefited? Large corporations and this town, boom town, have profited enormously from the expansion of these programs.”


“Since 2008, federal government spending on food stamps has doubled. That’s your taxpayer dollars. As the rolls increased, the profits in some of America’s largest corporations have increased as well.”

http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/profitsfrompoverty04182013/

 

[smitbret]

Let's imagine we have a single mother who got knocked up by two or three different dead beat dads, none of whom pay child support because they are either unemployed, in jail, or dirtbags who hide from the law. She's not exactly a great decision-maker and lacks education and job skills, so she won't be able to find anything more than a minimum wage job.

This person doesn't have the time to work 8 hours of community service, and if she did (let's say she doesn't work at all) she couldn't afford the daycare costs.

Ultimately, the question becomes, are you willing to let her children die because their parents make bad decisions? Alternatively, do you want to pay enormous legal fees to take custody away from her and put her children in the costly foster care system? As a final alternative, would you prefer to spend tons of money to investigate each claim on a case-by-case basis so we can determine when a person actually can't do the community service hours, including follow-up investigations to determine whether circumstances change (maybe a dad gets out of prison, gets a job, and starts ponying up support for daycare), just so we can get some labor out of someone who may not be a very productive worker anyway?

It's a nice thought to closely scrutinize how government welfare-system payments are utilized, but it really isn't very practical.

Well, odds are that the government is already paying for her day care so she can find 8 hours.

But, you're right. We should continue to feed the entitlement attitude and make sure that no one has to accept uncomfortable consequences to their stupid decisions. No wonder people growing up in poverty make poor decisions. They've learned that someone is always there to clean up the mess for them. I would rather know that the investigations were even occurring and know that my $$$ isn't being completely wasted.

Let 'em feel good now. Future be damned.

If you are a crappy parent, I don't feel bad if your kids are removed. I don't believe that people should have the assumption of the right to reproduce any more than they have the right to operate a motor vehicle.

 

[Cozarkian]

But, you're right. We should continue to feed the entitlement attitude and make sure that no one has to accept uncomfortable consequences to their stupid decisions.

I don't recall having ever suggested that in my entire life. I was merely pointing out that your proposal isn't as simple as let's impose restrictions and get more value for our government dollars. If you are willing to pay more in taxes monitor how your money is spent and to reduce the number of people abusing the welfare system OR if you are willing to make a decision to let people die, then your restrictions make sense.

Just don't advocate for restrictions on grounds that they will reduce the tax burden with no other negative consequences. Most likely, it will either cost more or you will have to convince society to let people die.

 

[momeNt]

Why aren't you able to just keep this in the government housing thread? You essentially cross-posted another user's post and started a thread with it.

I support this completely, it's a responsible move the help preserve the value of the property.

And philosophically - if you want to live off the government teat we really should make the milk as sour as possible.

 

[WHAMPOM]

in order for liberal Big.Gov to grow..it needs to grow dependency. It's all part of the collective mental illness called liberalism.

But when under Conservative control Government grows bigger then when under Liberal control as shown time after time?
Gotta argue with the facts not despite them.

 

[werepossum]

if there's one thing that'll make it easier for a person who's down on their luck to find a new job, it's having to work 8 hours/week in community service and having their phone confiscated.

I agree about the phone, but having to work 8 hours/week in community service might actually help them find a job. The most basic job skill is simply showing up.

Ahh, gotta love liberal logic. Any dollar they choose not to take in taxes is instead counted as 'being given by the government'. Exposing their view that EVERYTHING belongs to the government in the first place.

That is in my judgement the single most threatening viewpoint in this nation.

Well, odds are that the government is already paying for her day care so she can find 8 hours.

But, you're right. We should continue to feed the entitlement attitude and make sure that no one has to accept uncomfortable consequences to their stupid decisions. No wonder people growing up in poverty make poor decisions. They've learned that someone is always there to clean up the mess for them. I would rather know that the investigations were even occurring and know that my $$$ isn't being completely wasted.

Let 'em feel good now. Future be damned.

If you are a crappy parent, I don't feel bad if your kids are removed. I don't believe that people should have the assumption of the right to reproduce any more than they have the right to operate a motor vehicle.

Perhaps we might be better served paying for that eight hours. People willing to work would get a little more money to make their lives a little better, would develop base job skills, and would have a little something to put on a resume. I suspect that if 10% - 20% of the welfare base were on such a program it would be little more expensive than trying to enforce it on them all. The biggest problem would be trying to keep it an actual jobs program, getting value for money, rather than having it quickly devolve into yet another welfare program.

An option would be to require service, but to offer several different options such as maintenance work, child care, or education in a local community college. That would probably work best if the first one or two were paid, so that some people would choose to work a little and make a little extra, some would choose to continue doing nothing, and some would choose to forgo short term benefit to learn a useful job skill.

Probably the best thing we could do would be to remove the prohibition against husbands being on the dole. That way at least intact families would not be competitively disadvantaged and mothers would not be facing a disincentive for marrying their baby daddy.

 

[momeNt]

But when under Conservative control Government grows bigger then when under Liberal control as shown time after time?
Gotta argue with the facts not despite them.

The illness is called government. It grows, despite leadership. Never fails to grow until collapse.

 

[nehalem256]

"Them" meaning "she."

You're certainly not doing much to help the image of radical right-wingnuts!

She was the person that NPR chose to represent the plight of poor single moms.

See title of article: "To Beat Odds, Poor Single Moms Need Wide Safety Net"